DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Tony Blair: What Will Happen With Jihadists When Gitmo Closes?

by JASmius

The short answer, Mr. Former Prime Minister, is simple: "You're on your own":

It's understandable for Barack Obama to plan to close the Guantanamo detention center in Cuba, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday, but Blair wonders what will happen with other [jihad]ists as violence climbs around the world.

A blatant, clanging contradiction in that single sentence.  Almost as if all these years of leftwingnut agitating for Gitmo's closure and rewarding the Global Jihad were just words upon which people like Blair never expected to be acted, or even wanted them to be.  Yet another example of the Uhura Protocol: "Be careful what you ask may get it".

"The U.K. government asked for that as well," Blair told Fox News' Fox & Friends show. "But in the end, the real issue is what we do with these large numbers of [Muslim jihad]ists who are going to be causing trouble all over the world."

Sorry, mate, maybe you should have thought about that before asking for it.

Blair and former [Commissar] of Defense Leon Panetta announced earlier this week that they plan to launch a commission on violent [jihad]ism, with the aim to help the next presidential administration and leaders in Europe counter Muslim radicalization, reports the Washington Post.

You'll be shocked to learn that this "countering" will not include massive numbers of U.S. boots on the ground in the Middle East and Africa and wherever else necessary, which is the only way any actual "countering" can be carried out:

He told the Fox News program that the problems with [jihad]ism are not only occurring in the Middle East, but in "our own communities," and there have been some people returned to the United Kingdom from Guantanamo. [emphases added]

For which the British ought to not only be ragingly angry at Obama, but should even declare to be an act of war on his part against Great Britain, which is precisely how I would take it.

"This [jihadi]ism, it's growing," Blair said. "It's affecting the development of countries, it's disrupting societies, causing chaos across the Middle East, which is one of the most important arenas of the world."

And people like Blair do not and will never understand it, and therefore will never be able to "counter" it, because they're dhimmis already and wish to submerge themselves in the same seemingly undiscreditable comforting, nonsensical fantasies:

But he said his "real passion" is not to only persuade people that there are not only armies of hostile [jihad]ists wanting to wage attacks, but "it's tens of millions who follow an ideology that is deeply hostile to the west and based on what I would say is a perversion of Islam. [emphasis added]

<sigh>  No, Mr. Former Prime Minister, THAT IS ISLAM.  But you can't accept that, because that would mean accepting that this really is an unmediatable, irreconcilable "clash of civilizations," complete with twenty-first-century weapons of mass destruction (with which Barack Obama has effectively armed our Muslim enemies), and that would be too difficult with which to cope.

So you retreat ever deeper into seemingly undiscreditable comforting, nonsensical fantasies, and the clash of civilizations gets ever more violent and widespread - "in our own communities" - and all-out war that the West cannot win becomes more and more inevitable.

Good God, the man can't even say the word "jihadist".  Until he can do even that much, he really should stop whining.

1 comment:

Komodo said...

Blair's a lot closer to your viewpoint than you think. His record on putting boots on the ground and killing them in futile proxy conflicts is unassailable. And he's a specialist in doublespeak - though I disagree profoundly with your stance on Islam, I can respect your forthrightness in stating it - Blair, on the other hand, has spent his political career posing as a leftwinger while sucking up to power and capital.

Most of what he has to say on radical Islam vs moderate Islam is heavily slanted to tar the latter with the former's brush. And another of his political projects, as chair of the ECTR - wholly owned subsidiary of the European Jewish Council - while pretending to promote interfaith tolerance and reconciliation, in practice promotes these values in favour of one faith only. And that is not Islam.