He said this during a BBC Scotland program "Scotland After the Bomb".
His remark provoked sharp intakes of breath from the less logically challenged members of the audience, as well as applause from the performing seals, or ‘useful idiots’, as the soviets once called them?
He disingenuously claimed: "We should not differentiate between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. The effects are exactly the same. They kill innocent people."
Why should we not? As anyone with a modicum of common sense can tell there is in fact a staggeringly enormous difference between them.
A stealth bomber is a war machine, designed to be difficult spot on radar, or to shoot down - and to be able to bomb designated military targets in a war situation.
In the case of a stealth bomber, if civilians get killed, or injured, it is because they are being used as shields, or are part of the enemy support structure, or by accident. If the insurgents were actually concerned, for even a moment, for the well being of these civilians they could easily ensure they were not caught up in the combat - rather than, as appears more likely, deliberately ensuring they are caught up to benefit from the propaganda.
The Terrorist Suicide bomber (in this case also someone who swore an oath to do no harm) insinuates themselves into a society (the UK in this case), plots and deliberately commits murderous atrocities specifically designed to kill and maim non combatant members of that society - men, women and children indiscriminately and in large numbers. Moreover their targets have no military connection. All apparently to further the prospect of a world caliphate in some way.
The latter are effectively worse than spies and saboteurs who if they had plied their trade during WWII would have been executed.
The former are military equipment, marked accordingly, being flown by uniformed military personnel, on orders. Their targets are enemy military combatants.
If Aamer Anwar claims he can’t tell the moral difference between the two it says all you need to know about him.
He also asked: “Why is the Government so desperate to deny a link between Iraq and Afghanistan and what happened in London and Glasgow?”
Whilst not particularly wishing to offer succour to the Government, were they desperate?
As Mr Anwar no doubt well knew this comment is also disingenuous. The idea of such a link was thoroughly debunked by Hassan Butt, who should know if anyone should, having renounced extremist Islamism:
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.”
“By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.”
So there you have it, from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
Do ‘leading civil rights lawyers’ read the Guardian? Possibly not…
No comments:
Post a Comment