On Broken Hands and Broken Hearts

There is good reason why Tony Blair, the former PM of Britain, is now especial peace-envoy (read war-envoy) for the Middle East representing the quartet of the UN, EU, US and Russia: a post perhaps especially created for him – to make the best use of his Machiavellian and Orwellian abilities which combine with his hatred of Islam and Muslims. Speaking on the 23rd of April in London, on ‘Why the Middle East Matters,’ he advised the Western leaders to forget their internal differences and turn their full attention to the Middle-East, and beyond – where the word ‘beyond’ is used in the comprehensive sense of ‘all Muslim countries,’ to engage in a war on ‘Islamic extremism.’

After having gloriously fought wars in Iraq to get rid of its ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (which the Western Secret Agencies had reported did not exist), similar wars in Afghanistan (connecting it to the un-connectible in-house theatrics of 9/11) and in Libya, this time to establish ‘democracy’ (which is not good for Egypt under the Ikhwan, as it was not for Algeria some time back under Islamic Salvation Front), and a nose-bloodying visit to Pakistan, Blair thinks that the ‘mission is unaccomplished’ and so, a fresh round of what he calls as ‘engagement’ should be at the top of the agendas globally.

The audience before him of the ‘crusade-hungry’ of the 90s seems to have partly got transformed (thanks to errors in fixing priorities by Blair and his ilk) into merely ‘hungry’ (50% unemployed in parts of EU), doesn’t seem to have willing ears, so he pleads:

“It is unsurprising that public opinion in the UK and elsewhere, resents the notion that we should engage with the politics of the Middle East and beyond. We have been through painful engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. After 2008, we have had our own domestic anxieties following the financial crisis. And, besides, if we want to engage, people reasonably ask: where, how and to what purpose?”

The reason he cites for relegating the still simmering financial crisis, and the boiling Ukraine crisis, the tensions building in the Far East, to the back-benchers, but rather train guns on the Middle East is that, according to him, it ‘still represents the biggest threat to global security of the early 21st C.’ (This is in some contrast to the opinion of the common people of the EU regions who think that Israel is the single-most biggest threat to global peace).

With a copy of the Qur’an on his table, Tony cannot blame its message and so shifts it to the Muslims whose understanding is, in his opinion, distorted. He says,

“At the root of the crisis lies a radicalised and politicised view of Islam, an ideology that distorts and warps Islam’s true message.”

So, he will now instruct the Muslims (especially those who have oil, and where the ‘mission is unaccomplished’) in their religion, which means bulleting them down in a second round of engagement.

But, like every coward who fires from others’ shoulders, and, in order to trigger an ‘engagement’ of global nature (as well as to spread the costs), he invites his adversaries to join in. He says,

“… whatever our other differences, we should be prepared to reach out and cooperate with the East, and in particular, Russia and China.”

He is not shying away from stating the geo-political reason – oil. When he mentions several reasons for going into the ME (first, but not last), he documents it as the first reason,

“…it is still where a large part of the world’s energy supplies are generated, and whatever the long term implications of the USA energy revolution (meaning shale oil: au.), the world’s dependence on the Middle East is not going to disappear any time soon.”

As pointed out by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (April 13th), in another connection, Blair sounds like it is Netanyahu speaking. On this occasion he said,

“…in the centre of this maelstrom, is Israel. Its alliance with the USA, its partnership with leading countries of Europe, and the fact that it is a Western democracy, mean that its fate is never going to be a matter of indifference.”

This is another reason: service to those who gave Mr. Blair his religion.

But he should never be underestimated about another, in fact major, concern: Islam. He points out, ‘The Muslim population in Europe is now over 40 million and growing.’ In the same spirit, he adds that the M.E. must be targeted because, as he states, ‘It is in the Middle East that the future of Islam will be decided.’ And,

“The Middle East is still the epicenter of thought and theology in Islam. Those people, fortunately not a majority, in countries like, for example, Indonesia or Malaysia who espouse a strict Islamist perspective, didn’t originate these ideas. They imported them.”

Tony Blair would like those who are willing to listen to him (such as some of the ‘indifferent-to-Islamic’ rulers of the M.E.) to treat the Islamists of Egypt as of the same class: Islamic extremists. While suggesting what exactly should be done in various Islamic regions, he said with reference to Egypt,

“We should support the new Government and help. None of this means that where there are things we disagree strongly with – such as the death sentence on the 500 – that we do not speak out. Plenty of Egyptians have. But it does mean that we show some sensitivity to the fact that over 400 police officers have suffered violent deaths and several hundred soldiers been killed.”

One may note in the above how he plays with numbers. He reduces 529 to 500, but increases 300 to 400. Also, he lays the blame on the Brotherhood for the violence. Even The Economist of London could not but notice falsification of facts. It wrote:

“In the months since the coup, more than 300 policemen and soldiers have been killed in terrorist attacks or clashes with protesters. Egypt’s press has near-unanimously pinned blanket blame on the Muslim Brotherhood, which the government officially declared a terrorist organisation in December. This is despite evidence that the security people were targeted by more radical Islamist groups, and despite the killing of an estimated 3,000 civilians, most of them supporters of Mr. Morsi.” (www.economist.com/news/)

After some twelve pages of his speech, detailing the ‘why’s of future actions, he ends with words that have chilling effect on those who understand the diplomatic language in which war and peace are declared. He says,

“Unaddressed, the likelihood of conflict increases. Engagement does not always mean military involvement. Commitment does not mean going it alone. But it does mean stirring ourselves. It does mean seeing the struggle for what it is. It does mean taking a side and sticking with it.”

What it means in diplomatic language is: “If we all start together, right now, it will mean re-alignment, unity of purpose, joint action, stamping down of all resistance (‘the Islamic extremists’) in order that when military involvement is declared as the only option, choose that option without fear of criticism or, failure of operation, because all those who could disagree, or resist, of the indigenous population would be either brain-washed or in prisons.”

His policy statement did not go unnoticed by the intelligent community. Comments a Western writer:

“The extraordinary thing is that Blair is somebody so hate-filled he wants to see yet more hatred, killing and violence. It is worrying that the establishment media are so happy to promote his view without providing any balancing opinion.” (Blair’s Trick, Craig Murry – ICH)

Writes another commentator:

“Tony Blair’s lack of self-awareness and remorse makes him a highly dangerous individual and totally unsuited to his role as envoy for peace in the Middle East. He supported Israel’s wars in Lebanon and Gaza. He never loses an opportunity to praise the Israeli apartheid state, one recent example being his sickening eulogy at the funeral of the mass-murdering former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, who he called ‘a giant of this land.’ … Such is the widespread revulsion towards Tony Blair’s extremism, that he cannot travel anywhere without fear of facing a citizen’s arrest for his war crimes.” (Lindsey German & Robin Beste: ICH)

The British Newspaper, Guardian, had the following comment to make:

“Reprising the theme that guided him and George Bush through the deceit and carnage of the ‘war on terror,’ the former prime minister took his crusade against ‘Islamism’ on to a new plane. The west should, he demanded, make common cause with Russia and China to support those with a ‘modern’ view against the tide of political Islam.”

The underlining crusading spirit of Tony Blair’s speech, in the backdrop of the murderous performance of his past, are obvious to those who have minds that can think. Writes a columnist:

“All a bit worrying, since according to a book written by Blair’s political agent of twenty four years, John Burton, his decision to enjoin the attacks in both the Balkans and Iraq were part of a ‘Christian battle.’ … ‘It’s very simple to explain the idea of Blair the Warrior,’ Burton has said: ‘It was part of Tony living out his faith.’ Blair’s: ‘Christian faith is part of him, down to his cotton socks. He believed strongly … that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone – Iraq too – was all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil …’ Also according to Burton, he viewed George W. Bush’s unhinged ‘War on Terror’ as a ‘moral cause’ in fighting evil. … George W. Bush and Blair, of course shared the same zealot-like brand of Christianity. Four months after the 2003 Iraq invasion, at an Israeli-Palestinian summit in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh resort, Nabil Shaath, then Palestinian Foreign Minister, related: ‘President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq,’ and I did.’”

The story of 20-21st century crusade does not end with Blair or Bush:

“Former Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, also played the God card. During the Iraq invasion, it fell to him to prepare the top-secret Worldwide Intelligence Update: ‘circulated only among a handful of Pentagon leaders and the President.’ The: ‘cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous day’s war efforts.’” (Hijacking God? Tony Blair, George W. Bush and David Cameron, By Felicity Arbuthnot, http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/)

And,

“When Tony Blair was in residence, according to the diaries of his former communications director, Alastair Campbell, before the illegal invasion of Iraq, for which Blair’s Downing Street offices produced fantasy, fictional, false justifications, the then Prime Minister was guided by his faith and regularly spoke to his Maker.’” (Ibid)

But to Tony Blair, these comments do not matter. Anything that comes as disagreement with the war-mongers, the arms industry, the corporate sector, the war against terrorism, or the crusaders, is termed as ‘from the leftists’ and dismissed outright by the Western politicians who have educated their public to treat it in a similar manner.

But, can those who hold power in the Middle-Eastern countries, read between the lines the next 20 years’ policies that are being laid down with reference to them? Will they now contemplate a little on what the British MP, George Galloway, had to say in a speech delivered in Lebanon a couple of years ago, in substance,

“It seems like you are unaware of the plans being discussed in European Parliaments of breakup of the M.E. into smaller states.”

Those who sit back with broken hands, broken hearts and broken wills, take these matters to God. They say, “These are conspiracies. Allah will take care of them.” They cannot see the difference between conspiracies and meticulous planning. When the Romans gathered in Tabuk, the Prophet did not say, “This is Roman conspiracy. Allah will take care of them.” He put his soldiers on a 800-mile trek.

Nor is Blair’s speech a conspiracy.

Conspiracies can fail. He laid down policies. Policies do not fail.

__________________

Campaign against Islamism: In Britain, the campaign against Islamist ‘extremism’ is once again in full flow. In fact, it is open season on the Muslim community. For the past few weeks, reports have multiplied about an alleged ‘Islamic plot,’ code-named Operation Trojan Horse, to take control of 25 state schools in Birmingham and run them on strict religious principles.The education secretary, Michael Gove, a long-time neoconservative supporter of Blair’s wars and Islamist witchfinder general, responded by sending in an army of inspectors to hunt down extremists and appointing Peter Clarke, the former head of Scotland Yard counter-terrorism, to investigate. (Seumas Milne, Guardian – April 23, 2014).