Now Why Is Milliband Saying This Now

[Chinahand]

Link

 

I find this just political expediency of the worst kind.

 

Bush is leaving office, Labour is looking for headlines.

 

But every member of the cabinet was either a member of the government that took an active part in the actions and policies generated by the War on Terror, or was a loyal backbencher who voted for them and argued for them.

 

And on a side note on the excesses the War on Terror generated, we also have this report in the news at the moment.

 

US agents at Guantanamo Bay tortured a Saudi man suspected of involvement in the 11 September attacks, the official overseeing trials at the camp has said.

 

Susan Crawford told the Washington Post newspaper that Mohammad al-Qahtani had been left in a "life-threatening condition" after being interrogated.

 

Mr Qahtani remains at Guantanamo, but all charges against him were dropped.

 

He had been facing trial on counts of conspiracy, terrorism, and murder in violation of the laws of war.

 

"His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case," she said.

 

The West has no ethical or moral argument at the moment to convince the doubters that its world view is the correct direction for the world.

 

That is a stunning enditement on the policies of the leaders of the West.

 

By pursuing policies which have resulted in torture, extra judicial kidnapping, indefinite detainment, kangaroo courts, excessive military action, and a lack of care for civilian casualties the leaders of the West have handed the extremists a huge propoganda victory.

 

That imperals our security and destabilizes large areas of the world creating misery for millions.

 

What a disaster these people have brought. Rectifying it will take more than a few articles in the Guardian regretting the slogan their policies were inacted under.

 

I just hope things can improve and the West rediscover its moral compass.

[bluemonday]

I just hope things can improve and the West rediscover its moral compass.

Not unless it retrieves it from Dubyas' anus. It must be somewhere up there alongside Blair.

[Albert Tatlock]

Changing times. Obama's swearing in - that's what it's for. Expect some major changes - from the dark age foisted on us by Bush, Blair and NuShite.

[P.K.]

Miliband regrets 'war on terror'

 

I find this just political expediency of the worst kind. ....tick....tick...tick...

 

That is a stunning enditement on the policies of the leaders of the West. ....tick....tick...tick...

 

What a disaster these people have brought. Rectifying it will take more than a few articles in the Guardian regretting the slogan their policies were inacted under. ....tick....tick...tick...

 

I just hope things can improve and the West rediscover its moral compass.

I disagree. This quote "Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology." from my morning Grauniad stuck in my mind. Milliband is right in what he says. From your post I suspect you have missed the point he was making.

 

The slogan "War on Terror" is simplistic, no question. But when you think how isolationist and isolated a lot of Americans are and how thick the Mail-reading, middle-England, middle-classes are then you can see that simple things are all they are going to understand. But WOT gives the impression that terrorists are an army you can fight in a war. In the case of the Al Queda supporting Taliban in Afghanistan then that is correct so off your armies go to duff them up. It's then shown on the box which proves it. Iraq is slightly different but they put up on the www the likes of Al-Zarqawi, Al Quedas man in Iraq, beheading civilians and trying to push Iraq into civil war so it looks similar. So far so good.

 

WOT starts to look wrong when you think of the likes of the 7/7 bombers. You can't have a war with them because your armies can't fight them. They aren't the regime in power a la Afghanistan and Iraq so you can't invade them. You can't put them away in Guantanamo (where they are holding some very bad people despite all the civil-liberty tree-huggers claiming otherwise) although I always smile and think about NI internment that wasn't that different and home grown.

 

I'm wondering about his timing really. A call to "fight terrorist ideology by regaining the moral high ground" seems to be the subtext. With everyone horrified with "disproportionate force" and counting the number of dead children there are in Gaza it makes me wonder. Put it this way, we're not about to withdraw from Afghanistan so the "War On Terror" will continue. But I suspect they'll now condemn Guantanamo and raise their moral game in step with Obama.

 

Dear me, cynical moi?

[Chinahand]

P.K. I don't understand why you've put "tick" in the quote of my post - agreement or a timebomb!?

[bluemonday]

Millibland always looks like he's skived off from Art.

[P.K.]

P.K. I don't understand why you've put "tick" in the quote of my post - agreement or a timebomb!?

Neither. I just thought you were ticking on about Milliband, that is all.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Miliband regrets 'war on terror'

I just hope things can improve and the West rediscover its moral compass.

 

When did the West have a moral compass? I certainly do not think it ever had one.

 

 

I disagree. This quote "Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology." from my morning Grauniad stuck in my mind. Milliband is right in what he says. From your post I suspect you have missed the point he was making.

 

Iraq is slightly different but they put up on the www the likes of Al-Zarqawi, Al Quedas man in Iraq, beheading civilians and trying to push Iraq into civil war so it looks similar. So far so good.

 

Iraq's 'civil war' began when state authority disappeared. Al Qaeda only made things worse.

 

You can't put them away in Guantanamo (where they are holding some very bad people despite all the civil-liberty tree-huggers claiming otherwise) although I always smile and think about NI internment that wasn't that different and home grown.

 

I wasn't aware any groups were claiming that the guantanamo internees were not dangerous or bad people. I thought the argument was simply that they should not have been there, i.e. the arguments of people who have noted that the U.S.A., a democracy, is behaving just as badly as the terrorists they have caught.

 

But what about NI interment? It was a BIG mistake.

 

I'm wondering about his timing really. A call to "fight terrorist ideology by regaining the moral high ground" seems to be the subtext. With everyone horrified with "disproportionate force" and counting the number of dead children there are in Gaza it makes me wonder. Put it this way, we're not about to withdraw from Afghanistan so the "War On Terror" will continue. But I suspect they'll now condemn Guantanamo and raise their moral game in step with Obama.

 

Dear me, cynical moi?

 

I agree with your view on things here. What are you saying about Obama, is he going to change policy in respect of Guantanamo?

[don fugazi]

I broadly agree with David Microband. I always thought that "War on Terror" was a bad way for The Axis Of Bush to talk about its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.

 

Worse (but not as lasting) was Bush's referring to a "crusade" and saying things like "with God's help" which I am sure many Muslims felt gave them additional justification.

 

edited to remove ambiguity

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But even if we recognise that David Milliband is right to know want to think 'differently' on the War on Terror don't forget that the Labour government (as with all ass-licking British governments) has been following the American lead in this war for years now. There really haven't been ANY victories in this war on terrorism. To carry on such a war when you cannot show much for it is pointless. Policy can continue as usual, you just substitute the word 'war' for something different. And British government can easily find other words for things like this.

[P.K.]

There really haven't been ANY victories in this war on terrorism. To carry on such a war when you cannot show much for it is pointless.

Not so. Instead of being lauded as the hero of the hour Osama Bin Liner is now on the run with his organisation damaged and the supportive regime in Kabul removed. A nasty dictator in Iraq dropped out as well. It's not all bad news.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There really haven't been ANY victories in this war on terrorism. To carry on such a war when you cannot show much for it is pointless.

Not so. Instead of being lauded as the hero of the hour Osama Bin Liner is now on the run with his organisation damaged and the supportive regime in Kabul removed. A nasty dictator in Iraq dropped out as well. It's not all bad news.

 

I don't share them but I recognise some of your beliefs and perspective on how intervention of a foreign military should be used, but the War on Terror was not about eradicating STATE terrorism in the case of Iraq, though it was Afghanistan I would agree. A nasty dictator was deposed and unfortunately (because I don't believe capital punishment is right) executed but the replacement is simply different rulers though of course ones who do not perpetrate state terrorism, but again this was not the intention of the Americans or the British.

 

I think the problem is that the use of British and American force constitutes a form of terrorism in its intensity and longevity in these regions that erodes the credibility of what the governments call a War on Terror.

 

I agree with what you say about Osama Bin Lader, and if this was JUST a war against Al Qaeda it would make more sense. But the term came to quickly become some crusade against all forms of terrorism, regardless of why they occur and ignoring that Britain and America are terrorist states themselves.