I was stopped by someone the other week who said it was not surprising there was so much terrorism in the world when we invaded their countries (meaning Afghanistan and Iraq). No wonder Muslims felt angry.
I said to him: tell me exactly what they feel angry about. We remove two utterly brutal and dictatorial regimes; we replace them with a UN-supervised democratic process.
And the only reason it is difficult still is because other Muslims are using terrorism to try to destroy the fledgling democracy and, in doing so, are killing fellow Muslims.
Why aren’t they angry about the people doing the killing? The odd thing about the conversation is I could tell it was the first time he’d heard this argument.
Just a few thoughts…
— I realize I am beating a dead horse, but no wonder the man had never heard such a concept considering the state of the BBC and other international reporting on terrorism.
— Tony Blair is incredibly eloquent and articulate, able to convey important truths in an easily understandable manner. I can’t help but wonder how different opinion on the war on terror and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been if President Bush were even half as eloquent and if he used his bully pulpit to make the case on the reasons we have to continue the fight.
— My final thought is how bogus the silly charges are that Blair was ever Bush’s lapdog. The man not only had (and has) strong opinions of his own about the way to approach the threat of terrorism, but he has continually articulated them in detail, citing facts to back up and explain the reasoning he used every step of the way. The situation in his country with the rise of Islamic extremism is a frightening one and Blair’s willingness to address and confront that reality is something that will be sorely missed. Those accusing him of being a lapdog fall into the same camp as those saying Bush invaded Iraq because he is an evil, oil-hungry Hitler clone. They are unable to debate the facts or to argue intelligently so instead they engage in the equivalent of name-calling exploiting emotions instead of employing tactics of serious debate.