(JEREMY CORBYN TRIES THE TRUTH) by Lawrence Davidson
Theresa May verscheen na de laatste aanslag in London in beeld en heeft het over nieuwe maatregelen die genomen moeten worden om het 'kwaad van het Terrorisme' uit te roeien, immers 'enough is enough'.
— Past governments have not been willing to address these connections, and now the people of the UK are confronted with a “war on terror that is simply not working.”
Mevrouw May suggereert in haar mededeling voor Downingstreet nummer 10, dat het Terrorisme een zelfstandig kwaad is dat zich onttrokken heeft aan de wetmatigheid van 'oorzaak en gevolg'.
Het is 'Het Kwaad'
Een suggestie die ondanks haar beroep op eensgezindheid in haar land toch via een omweg de 'schuld' bij de Moslimgemeenschap neerlegt. Jeremy Corbyn durft de hand in eigen boezem te steken. Chapeau!
An
Analysis (9 June 2017) by Lawrence Davidson
Part I – Speaking the Truth
On
26 May 2017 Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of British Labour Party, made a speech
which dealt in large part with security and foreign policy. Much of his
presentation was surprisingly accurate.
Here is what he said:
—
There is a cause and effect relationship “between wars our governments
supported and fought in other countries and terrorism here at home.” For
instance, the 22 May 2017 Manchester bombing, which killed 22 people, may well
be connected to the United Kingdom’s involvement in the overthrow of the Libyan
government of Muammar Gaddafi and the subsequent civil wars.
—
This cause and effect relationship is not a matter of speculation. “Many
experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services,
have pointed to these connections.”
— Past governments have not been willing to address these connections, and now the people of the UK are confronted with a “war on terror that is simply not working.”
— “We
need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists
and generate terrorism.” Therefore, Corbyn promised that, if he were to
become the leader of the British government, he would “change what we do
abroad.”
Corbyn’s
speech is unusual because political leaders rarely point out that policies
supported by major special interest groups (such as the Zionists, Saudis and
the arms industry) are really catastrophic errors. More rarely still do they
say so in public. In the case of terrorist attacks, almost every Western leader
has blamed “radical Islam” (leaving out, of course, any reference to Saudi
Wahhabism). The public at large has gone along with this view because it echoes
the media message that constitutes the source of their knowledge on most
non-local subjects. The media outlets have never told them that the murderous
foreign policies of their own governments contributed to terrorism coming to
their shores. And now, along comes Jeremy Corbyn’s message that British
policies abroad have something to do with British tragedies at home.
Part II – The Reaction
Such
a fundamental challenge to policy can be traumatic, so Corbyn’s political foes
have responded with indignation. For instance, Ben Wallace, Minister of State
for security in the present Conservative government, labeled Corbyn’s remarks
as “crass and appallingly timed.” The word “crass” means rude or vulgar and it
is hard to see how stating a truism in acceptable English qualifies as crass.
Just so, why characterize Corbyn’s timing, coming shortly after the Manchester
terror attack, as “appalling”? Should the Labour Party leader have waited for a
lull in such attacks so that his point would be missed by the British public?
Wallace also indulged in wrongheaded denial.
He charged Corbyn with being ahistorical in his assessment of terrorist enemies. He stated that “these people [the terrorists] hate our values, not our foreign policy.” It is depressing that conservatives throughout the Western world have learned so little – if anything at all – since 2001. That is the year George W. Bush delivered the grotesquely misleading line that Ben Wallace now echoes. Right after 9/11 Bush proclaimed the terrorists do what they do (at least in the West) because “they hate our freedoms.” Anyone who is familiar with the attitudes of Middle East militants, religious or secular, knows that the vast majority do not care what sort of values and freedoms we practice in our own countries. However, they do care about the damaging foreign policies we impose upon their countries.
He charged Corbyn with being ahistorical in his assessment of terrorist enemies. He stated that “these people [the terrorists] hate our values, not our foreign policy.” It is depressing that conservatives throughout the Western world have learned so little – if anything at all – since 2001. That is the year George W. Bush delivered the grotesquely misleading line that Ben Wallace now echoes. Right after 9/11 Bush proclaimed the terrorists do what they do (at least in the West) because “they hate our freedoms.” Anyone who is familiar with the attitudes of Middle East militants, religious or secular, knows that the vast majority do not care what sort of values and freedoms we practice in our own countries. However, they do care about the damaging foreign policies we impose upon their countries.
Tim
Farron, the British Liberal Democratic leader, also went after Corbyn for using
the moment of the Manchester terrorist attack to make “a political point.”
Apparently, though, it’s a point that Farron has missed. What is important
about Corbyn’s statement is that it properly contextualizes not only the
Manchester attack but most of all other terrorist attacks in the West. Corbyn’s
message is an accurate historical analysis that has political implications.
Part III – To What Avail the
Truth?
Politicians
obviously have self-interested reasons for denying that they have
misinterpreted, miscalculated, and then persisted in bad policies that have
resulted in death and destruction for their own countrymen as well as others.
No doubt a sort of special interest-induced myopia allows some of them to
believe that if they only stick to their strategy they will prevail. This is
certainly the case with the American president Donald Trump. After the latest
terror attack in London he let loose a Twitter broadside telling the world “we
must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security
for our people.” This lined up nicely with Prime Minister Theresa May’s public
comment that the British government has been “too tolerant” toward terrorists.
These words have little real meaning. They are more likely code words for
continued Western violence in the Middle East, which Mr. Corbyn correctly
identifies as the reason there are terrorist attacks in our part of the world
in the first place.
A
recent British poll conducted just before the 8 June election indicated that
75% of those contacted now believe that Jeremy Corbyn is correct and there is a
connection between intervention into the Middle East morass and terrorism
within the UK. The poll claims its sample is representative of the population
as a whole.
Then on 9 June the UK had its general election. As a result the Conservatives remain the largest party in parliament, but with a seriously reduced number of seats. In order to rule with an outright majority, a party needs 326 seats. The Conservatives won only 319 compared to Labour’s 261. There are several other parties such as the Liberal Democrats mentioned above, but their seat count is much less. For example the Liberal Dems won only 12 seats. All in all it was a comparative win for Labour and loss for the Conservatives.
Then on 9 June the UK had its general election. As a result the Conservatives remain the largest party in parliament, but with a seriously reduced number of seats. In order to rule with an outright majority, a party needs 326 seats. The Conservatives won only 319 compared to Labour’s 261. There are several other parties such as the Liberal Democrats mentioned above, but their seat count is much less. For example the Liberal Dems won only 12 seats. All in all it was a comparative win for Labour and loss for the Conservatives.
People
cast their votes for many different reasons – mostly local in nature (thus the
notion of voting one’s pocketbook). However, terrorism is a factor that has
been invading the local space of more and more British citizens, and so we can
safely assume that at least some who supported the Labour Party in this
election did so because the heeded Jeremy Corbyn’s warning of a connection
between the UK’s present foreign policy and national insecurity.
As for those who
pinned their hopes on continued Conservative Party rule, they also
inadvertently voted for endless terrorism in their own backyard.
"They are over Here because We are over There"
