Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Renaissance and reaction to Islam.

  1. Aug 2, 2006 #1
    What Tony Blair believes about the Middle East, I offer it up for comment and it speaks for itself so will offer no view, a short form believe it or not :bugeye: :smile: : discuss.

    Feel free to read the whole thing including the PM's comments in reply to questions.

    http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9948.asp

     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 2, 2006 #2
    the end of his speech, well sort of:-

     
  4. Aug 2, 2006 #3

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It's changed now.
     
  5. Aug 2, 2006 #4
    well its a nice job application :)

    Hope he means at least some of it... Its all very well speaking about this stuff, its action that *WE* want to see...
     
  6. Aug 2, 2006 #5
    It is good to see Blair plainly stating that the use violence against a persons and property within Iraq was done as a means of advancing his political/ideological cause. That is, by Britian's own definition, terrorism.
    Denying the legitimate grievances of anyone only defeats peace by inciting moderates to embrace extremism. Until we are willing to accept our own share of the fault here and work to correct our ways, we are helping to fuel this conflict.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2006
  7. Aug 2, 2006 #6
    What legitimate grievances?
     
  8. Aug 2, 2006 #7
    We spoke about the most blatant and long standing example back in the "Israel steps up Strikes" thread; the nearly forty year occupation and continuing expansion onto Palestinian land.
     
  9. Aug 2, 2006 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What then, is the difference between terrorism and war?
     
  10. Aug 2, 2006 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You are misconstruing Britains actions in Iraq. "Persons and property" is talking about civilians and civilians were not the targets in that war.

    Swing and a miss.
     
  11. Aug 2, 2006 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Terrorism is violence against "persons and property" for coercion. Ie, make the population suffer and they or their government might submit to your wishes. War is militaries fighting militaries to directly cause the government to submit to your wishes (ie, conquering them).

    But I'm sure you already knew that...
     
  12. Aug 2, 2006 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm going to start sounding like a parrot eventually, but you guys ignore the facts over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, so often that I have to keep repeating this:

    Israel IS addressing the occupation by, among other things, beginning unilateral withdrawals from occupied territories. It cannot be claimed that Israel is not willing to remedy that grievance - they are addressing the Palestinians' primary grievance with no promise - indeed, not even any discussion - from the Palestinians that they will address Israel's primary grievance. They are going further than being "willing to address" it - they actually addressing it!

    And incidentally, "continuing expansion into Palestinian Land" is intentionally misleading. Israel is not conquering/taking new land. What they are doing is building new settlements in land they already occupy. That's a legitimate grievance, so there is no need to try to be deceptive about it.
     
  13. Aug 2, 2006 #12

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Terrorism:war::William Quantrill:J.E.B. Stuart
     
  14. Aug 2, 2006 #13

    Hans de Vries

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor



    Russ, You can only convince people by proving these "facts" . Israel's
    leadership doesn't help you here since the intentions they express to
    their own people are very different. Again, read the interview below.

    One personal statement: For me, I wouldn't like any settlers to be moved
    out of their homes at all. In a normal world they should be able to stay
    where they are, speak their own language and enjoy the same rights and
    protection. After all, Palestinians are not forced to move out of Israel
    either with the creation of a Palestinian state.


    Now this is from the interview "The big freeze" (of the peace process)


    In an October 6, 2004 interview with Israel’s Daily “Haaretz”,
    Dov Weissglas, Sharon's chief of staff, declared about the
    unilateral disengagement plan:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929


    Regards, Hans
     
  15. Aug 3, 2006 #14
    Thank you Hans, that is exactly the continuing expansion into Palestinian Land which I speak of.

    The definition does not specify civilians; and even if they did, our "Shock and Awe" took many civilian lives and civilians property in an effort to implement our "values change" on them. Of course you can argue that they weren't the targets, but we made the chose to strike and we used big enough weapons to take many out with our goal being exactly what Blair said it was.

    Give or take a bit given the specifics, it is the iinverse of the difference between diplomacy and peace.
     
  16. Aug 3, 2006 #15
    This is what an ex-ambassador Russia thinks of Blair, Its an interesting read, but take it with a pinch of salt...

     
  17. Aug 3, 2006 #16

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    That is the single best historical allusion that anyone has ever made on this forum.
     
  18. Aug 3, 2006 #17

    The best, Really? Even I got it :smile: and I know jack about American History
     
  19. Aug 3, 2006 #18
    Well I'm going to comment in more depth on this later, but my first impression of the monologue was, it's a nice series of thoughts Tony but most people have heard rhetoric like this about the Middle East before, so put your money where your mouth is, and change Bush's mind over the tactics in the Middle East to something more realistic, and we might get something real, instead of the current hot air, the virtual ceasefire and a political mess. If he's being genuine it sounds positive.

    A colleague of mine says that it's the typical Blair waffle that imparts much but says little but then he is a conservative I think so he's biased. Where as I lean liberal, about halfway between conservative and Blairism. Although I don't make a habbit of voting these days.

    You have to remember Tony is stepping down before the next general election, so he can say anything he likes, but it's his adminisitration and his successor that will have to achieve it. In summation, you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?


    That allusion went straight over my head. Cmon the best ever, prove it:tongue: :smile:
     
  20. Aug 3, 2006 #19

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Most of it is right on the money. Blair is able to express the key points much better than Bush, but, to be honest, Bush's style is to concede that the average person is too ignorant of world events to understand them.

    The only thing Blair really didn't explain was how deposing a secular dictator figured into this. Hussein was definitely a dictator, but I still don't see how Iraq ever figured into fighting extremist groups like al-Qaeda.

    Invading Iraq to spread democracy really doesn't cut it, since, just as Blair noted, we were seeing progress in most of the small Middle Eastern states and the progress was beginning to spread to some of the larger Middle Eastern states.

    These changes were already occurring before we invaded Iraq and would have continued even if we didn't invade Iraq - probably at a faster pace than will happen since we did invade Iraq.

    Aside from lumping Iraq into a category it didn't belong, it was very insightful, especially as to the real conflict going on in the Middle East.

    If you tell people to give up Coca-cola, cell phones, and other Western products, they'll turn on you. If you show them the people making those products are evil and trying to persecute Palestinians, maybe hatred of the West will expand to hatred of Western products and lifestyles.
     
  21. Aug 3, 2006 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Could you summarize briefly what you think that is saying that goes against what I am saying?

    It appears to me from your choice of bolds that you are trying to say that Israel is not interested in negotiations. Ie:
    But you are ignoring the part where he says that the reason for that is:
    So he point of that whole interview is not saying that Israel doesn't want a negotiated peace - it is saying that Israel will not negotiate peace while under attack. That's a pretty critical aspect you are missing.

    Besides which, of course, is still the inescapable fact that Israel did withdraw from the Gaza Strip. That's a positive, unilateral move. Yes, it held benefits for them - but so what? Countries hold land in a death grip and he fact that they gave it up without so much as a peep of negotiation from the other side is huge.

    And I don't need to remind you again that only one side of this conflict (Israel) even considers the possibility of peace with the other, right? It is still the policy of the PA that Israel must be destroyed. That is what is standing in the way of negotiations for peace.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Renaissance and reaction to Islam.
  1. Islam is peace Bush said (Replies: 12)

  2. Fascist Islam (Replies: 0)

  3. Fear of offending Islam (Replies: 13)

Loading...