Friday, July 08, 2005
London Bombs
There is little point in adding to the GigaJoules of human brain energy presently being directed toward the London Transport bombings, as to do so would make only a minute and inaudible contribution to the cacophany of opinion and speculation.
Christpher Hitchens though did offer his opinion this morning (transcript not yet published), and quite honestly he didn't sound drunk. From memory he made a few points, which deserve if nothing else, some consideration.
1. He said that this is a civil war between Muslims which the West just happens to be caught up in.
2. He criticised Tony Blair's speech (calling it pathetic I think) because Blair puts the wrong emphasis on the motives of the terrorists. He is of the view that Blair's emphasis, that they are trying "to cower us, to frighten us", is the wrong way to express it because it doesn't recognise that it is really a civil war occuring within Islam.
3. He suggest that the term War on Terror is a nonsense, and implies that the emphasis of the West's leaders needs to change to recognise that it is really this civil war.
I'll have to go and have another look at the transcript when it appears, but it's certainly an interesting argument, and one that may have significance on the whole WoT strategy if accepted at higher levels.
Update: Contrast these thoughtful, provocative and potentially very important ideas, with Tim Blair's contribution to the debate. Mr. Blair feels that true patriots must madly google in times of crisis, snorting amphetimines and knocking back bottles of Jack Daniels, while recieving his moment by moment blogging action through one eye, while the other multitasks between the Fox News and CNN. Its high octane patriotism for Mr. Blair, and when he gets a moment to catch a breather, the first thing he does is lash out at the nearest lefty's typo.
Gee, it's so good to know he's on the case.
Note: 3000 character limit on comments Christpher Hitchens though did offer his opinion this morning (transcript not yet published), and quite honestly he didn't sound drunk. From memory he made a few points, which deserve if nothing else, some consideration.
1. He said that this is a civil war between Muslims which the West just happens to be caught up in.
2. He criticised Tony Blair's speech (calling it pathetic I think) because Blair puts the wrong emphasis on the motives of the terrorists. He is of the view that Blair's emphasis, that they are trying "to cower us, to frighten us", is the wrong way to express it because it doesn't recognise that it is really a civil war occuring within Islam.
3. He suggest that the term War on Terror is a nonsense, and implies that the emphasis of the West's leaders needs to change to recognise that it is really this civil war.
I'll have to go and have another look at the transcript when it appears, but it's certainly an interesting argument, and one that may have significance on the whole WoT strategy if accepted at higher levels.
Update: Contrast these thoughtful, provocative and potentially very important ideas, with Tim Blair's contribution to the debate. Mr. Blair feels that true patriots must madly google in times of crisis, snorting amphetimines and knocking back bottles of Jack Daniels, while recieving his moment by moment blogging action through one eye, while the other multitasks between the Fox News and CNN. Its high octane patriotism for Mr. Blair, and when he gets a moment to catch a breather, the first thing he does is lash out at the nearest lefty's typo.
Gee, it's so good to know he's on the case.
|
