Blair playing a blinder

[xxxx]

Your appetite for unanswerable hypothesis is a wonder to behold

He didn't ask me personally, i'm just making sure he doesn't.

I don't think there is any possibility of that. So you are being a little pre-emptive there, unless you know what he really thinks and is concerned about your opinion

There are many people, some of them here, that are quite prepared to infer Iraq as being the reason.

As noone can definitively answer, and the bombers failed to explain their motives, it's as valid an opinion as any other. The mystery serves everyone equally, according to their views.

I accept it has not helped, but argue that not invading Iraq did not buy us immunity from attack.

This is unknowable now, though one of the justifications for invading was to stop this sort of thing. This strays towards anrgument about the invasion itself, however, away from the motivation question.

I must have missed something though, I was under the impression that you have consistently conflated theories of motivation with attempts to excuse the acts, though I have seen none of the latter.

[Porty]

This is unknowable now, though one of the justifications for invading was to stop this sort of thing. This strays towards anrgument about the invasion itself, however, away from the motivation question.

I don't agree that its is unknowable, here is what the probable perpetrator said in 1998.

To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.
Osama bin Laden
In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement, February 28, 1998

[xxxx]

I don't agree that its is unknowable

I disagree with you for the reason that you cannot rerun history in the same way as you can a scientific experiment. Iraq was invaded, and from that point we can never know what would have happened if we had not. You can speculate, but noone can know with any certainty. That is the meaning of unknowable.

This was certainly separate from my question regarding motivation/excuse, but then you are quick to try and change the subject, make unfounded allegations against people you know nothing of and avoid answering the questions you are asked.

These are the kind of tactics that make debate pointless, as well as tedious.

[Porty]

This was certainly separate from my question regarding motivation/excuse, but then you are quick to try and change the subject, make unfounded allegations against people you know nothing of and avoid answering the questions you are asked.

What question and what allegations?

Edit

I disagree with you for the reason that you cannot rerun history in the same way as you can a scientific experiment. Iraq was invaded, and from that point we can never know what would have happened if we had not. You can speculate, but noone can know with any certainty. That is the meaning of unknowable.

Accepted and I was wrong to state it was knowable. I should have used probable or the liklihood was common knowledge or that there was stated intent.

[xxxx]

What question and what allegations?

Well, the first allegation was that

What a sorry bunch the Iraqi excusers are

This assumes that there are people trying to excuse the london bombings by citing the invasion.
I see and hear no evidence of this within mainstream opinion. Certainly not amongst the Question Time audience, or in this forum, or on TV.
What I have heard is people contend that the invasion might be a motivation for those acts. These, I assume,are the people you are concerned about. They are not excusing the events, merely expressing an opinion.

I think it is unwarranted to conflate an imaginary group of people, the 'Iraqi excusers', with a real one, the 'motivationists' for want of a better term and allege that the latter hold the opinions of the former.

This led to the question 'who is asking you to accept these excuses' to which you alleged that the father of one of the bombers was. That is an unfounded allegation if I ever saw one, and therefore not a serious answer.

Hope that clears things up

[Porty]

I now get the point you are making and that you think it is unwarranted that I make "excuse" equivalent to "motivation". I still say its a thin line. Edit: However I accept your argument at least as far as POL is concerned. Its partly why I aplogised to dc.

Turning to the question that you accused me of avoiding. What was it? I feel I am being accused of avoiding a quastion that was never asked.

[xxxx]

I now get the point you are making and that you think it is unwarranted that I make "excuse" equivalent to "motivation".

That's a start, Am I wrong to say that to theorise about motivation is not to attempt to provide justification?

I still say its a thin line.
Edit: However I accept your argument at least as far as POL is concerned. Its partly why I aplogised to dc.

They are either equivalent or not, to use one of your tangents:
If I say
'I think Harold Shipman killed for money'
Can you reasonably infer
'I think Harold Shipman was justified in having killed for money'?
There's no line between them, thick or thin. They are two quite different statements. One is a theory about motivation. One is a justification which uses a theory of motivation.

Turning to the question that you accused me of avoiding. What was it? I feel I am being accused of avoiding a quastion that was never asked.

The question was, who are these people asking you to accept that the invasion is justification for the bombings. Who are the 'Iraqi excusers' in the national mainstream?

[Porty]

Am I wrong to say that to theorise about motivation is not to attempt to provide justification?

No, that is why I apologised to dc.

'I think Harold Shipman killed for money'
Can you reasonably infer
'I think Harold Shipman was justified in having killed for money'?
There's no line between them, thick or thin. They are two quite different statements. One is a theory about motivation. One is a justification which uses a theory of motivation..

I can't fault the logic here. However, its not the same as an angry member of the QT audience excusing 7/7 and even the first WTC attacks on the Iraq War of 1992.

The question was, who are these people asking you to accept that the invasion is justification for the bombings. Who are the 'Iraqi excusers' in the national mainstream?

The bloke that made the statement about Blair and Daly on Question Time and all those that applauded. An attempt to rationalise is in itself an excuse. The tone of the statement said it all.

[xxxx]

The bloke that made the statement about Blair and Daly on Question Time and all those that applauded. An attempt to rationalise is in itself an excuse. The tone of the statement said it all.

An attempt to rationalise is not in itself an excuse, its an attempt to rationalise.

Unless he actually said that the bombers were justified in their actions by the prior events he was not making an excuse.

[Porty]

Unless he actually said that the bombers were justified in their actions by the prior events he was not making an excuse.

Whatever, this has got tedious, I will accept your argument and move on.

[dccairns]

I thing xxxx's distinction between motivation and justification is a very important one. Thanks for pushing this point home. It makes us "sorry bunch" feel not so sorry after all. The only way to stop this kind of attack happening again is to try to understand why it happened and deal with the root causes of the problem instead of just condemning and putting in place a lot of draconian measure which may not be effective.

And well done xxxx for getting Porty to accept your point.

[Porty]

The only way to stop this kind of attack happening again is to try to understand why it happened and deal with the root causes of the problem instead of just condemning and putting in place a lot of draconian measure which may not be effective.

Massive assumption on the ability to negotiate, reason and rationalise dc. Furthermore, if the Iraqi motivation squad are correct, then there is no solution. The invasion has happened and its not like a forensic experiment, we can't make it unhappen. So I guess we are stuck with it

And well done xxxx for getting Porty to accept your point.

xxxx made a good clear case and I am not averse to acknowledging mistakes when I make them. How about a "Well done Porty for acceptng xxxx argument" ?

Back to topic: It looks like Blair has pulled off another biggie (Phwoar) with the IRA demise as a violent force. Quite a good example of trying to understand the other sides' position and finding a solution. In fact probably the only example in history of the disarming of a terrorist force by negotitaion. Well done I say.

[dccairns]

I'm not going to rise to the bait. You have not answered any of the points I raised weeks ago as evidence of Blair not having played a blinder.

[Porty]

Not rising to what bait?

Can you please run the evidence by me again and I will address.

[xxxx]

f the Iraqi motivation squad are correct, then there is no solution.

The invasion has happened and its not like a forensic experiment, we can't make it unhappen.

So I guess we are stuck with it

Totally fallacious reasoning

Unless you are arguing that the purpose of the bombings is to change a historical fact.

It is far more plausible that they seek to end the consequences of the invasion: the occupation and its attendant miseries

If the 'motivation squad' are correct,there is a solution. They are attacking because we invaded. If we leave then it would, according to their reasoning, remove the reason for attacking us.

You are confusing an event, which cannot be undone, with a situation, which can be changed.

[Porty]

If the 'motivation squad' are correct,there is a solution. They are attacking because we invaded. If we leave then it would, according to their reasoning, remove the reason for attacking us..

Who are they?

[xxxx]

Who are they?

That is an extremely moot point, but I was referring to the people who carried out the london bombings.

[dccairns]

Porty, in my post of 10 July I listed a number of failed or disastrous policies implemented by the New Labour goverment. Let's see if you can refute my arguments. (Oh no, what have I let myself in for?)

Anyway, here's one for starters: the gap between rich and poor has grown wider under the Blair administration.

[Porty]

Who are they?

That is an extremely moot point, but I was referring to the people who carried out the london bombings.

Im not asking what they did, I am asking who they are? What group do they represent?

[Porty]

Porty, in my post of 10 July I listed a number of failed or disastrous policies implemented by the New Labour goverment. Let's see if you can refute my arguments. (Oh no, what have I let myself in for?)

I will take a look and revert.

Anyway, here's one for starters: the gap between rich and poor has grown wider under the Blair administration.

Source?

Could you also check on the percentage of people that live in poverty as defined by the UN. I think its 17%. Has that got bigger or smaller? (I don't know)

[Dadaist]

If the people who bombed London were only motivated by Iraq, then they were second-rate Jihadis in my opinion.

If you take their motivation as a perversion of moderate Islamic thought, they should also have been motivated by (and this isn't an exhaustive list)

- the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan
- events in and around the first and second Intifada in Palestine
- Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa factory
- deaths caused by the sanctions programme after Bush Sr's outing
- said outing, depleted uranium & the road to Basra et al
- US military in Saudi
- experience with UK & Pakistani intel during the Bhutto government during the war in the Balkans
- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram and the secret network of torture prisons

If they were only motivated by Iraq then they haven't done their homework correctly. It may be the most recent event and the thing that tipped them over the edge into madness, but to deny our long history of murder and torture of muslims is to deny history itself.

[xxxx]

Im not asking what they did, I am asking who they are? What group do they represent?

You are being a pedantic without any point here here, but I'm happy to help

As we are discusing the possible motivation of the london bombers, that is who I am referring to

Its perfectly reasonable to identify someone by their activities, even if you are not privy to all information about them

Here's an example:
If you ask me the way to Princes Street and I say 'I don't know but you should ask that policeman over there' and point to man in a police uniform, I think you would realise that I refer to the person that is doing some policing in the area I am pointing at. I wouldn't necessarily know anything about the policeman, but we would mutually identify him by his policing activity.

If I say 'the london bombers' I would hazard that most of the sentient population would understand it to be the people who detonated or attempted to detonate bombs in london recently. As they have yet to explain themselves or be tried, how would I know anything else about them?

If I did I would surely report it to the relevant authorities

[xxxx]

Porty, in my post of 10 July I listed a number of failed or disastrous policies implemented by the New Labour goverment. Let's see if you can refute my arguments. (Oh no, what have I let myself in for?)

I will take a look and revert.

Anyway, here's one for starters: the gap between rich and poor has grown wider under the Blair administration.

Source?

Could you also check on the percentage of people that live in poverty as defined by the UN. I think its 17%. Has that got bigger or smaller? (I don't know)

If you are looking at income inequality rather tha poverty rates, the standard measure is the gini coefficient
trends for uk here:

http://www.britain.tv/community_british ... lity.shtml

it would seem that for disposable income, which for most of us is what matters, is on the way up, ie the gap is increasing.

[Porty]

Its perfectly reasonable to identify someone by their activities, even if you are not privy to all information about them

Following your logic; you should therefore be able to identify the group from their stated intent to cease terrorist bombing in the UK when forces are drawn from Iraq. Google the statement and that should lead you to the answer................

[Porty]

it would seem that for disposable income, which for most of us is what matters, is on the way up, ie the gap is increasing.

Everyone's disposable income could be increasing at the same rate so your statement doesn't hold. However, from the Gini graph it does appear that although Income levels are increasing the gap is also widening. As a plus point for the Governmenti it is pointed out that policies of indirect taxation and means tested benefits has slowed the pace of the differential.

Dc would be to correct to say the income gap is widening but I am not sure she can use this stat as evidence that Blair is doing a bad job.

Dc wants to use poverty as evidence to prove Blair's poor performance, then surely it is fair that we look at the overall poverty/income, picture/trends since New Labour took over in 1997. Source anyone?

[Porty]

Dc is this the post to which you refer?

[quote="dccairns"]Porty, I am disappointed that you have not read Tariq AliÂ’s article which I posted yesterday. I think youare also missing the point George Monbiot is making about the reality of the G8 in the article posted by moffat.
Let me answer your point about the allegedly “unelectableÂâ€Â

[xxxx]

Its perfectly reasonable to identify someone by their activities, even if you are not privy to all information about them

Following your logic; you should therefore be able to identify the group from their stated intent to cease terrorist bombing in the UK when forces are drawn from Iraq. Google the statement and that should lead you to the answer................

You are not following my logic, I am saying that it is possible to identify a group by their activities, ie establish that all parties are talking about an agreed group. The group I was referring to was the group that carried out the bombings, nothing more. That's all I know about them.

All I have attempted to do is defend people's legitimate right to have a theory of their motivation without being stigmatised as a sympathiser.

The correctness of these theories I have made no statement on.

All I could do with your suggested google search is identify a group who claim to be able to stop bombings if certain conditions are met. I would have no idea whether they could,who they were or if they were linked with another group, but I would be able to say that they are a group who claim to be able to stop bombings if certain conditions are met. I could then discuss with another person the group who claim to be able to stop bombings if certain conditions are met.

[xxxx]

Everyone's disposable income could be increasing at the same rate so your statement doesn't hold. ?

Inequality, the gap between rich and poor. The distribution of income within a population. Independent of the actual numeric values. That is what the Gini coefficient is designed and accepted to measure. If the figure rises, the gap is increasing. The figure is rising so the gap is increasing. So my statement does hold. Its a good enough measure for the UN, so it'll do for me.

[Porty]

I am saying that it is possible to identify a group by their activities, ie establish that all parties are talking about an agreed group. The group I was referring to was the group that carried out the bombings, nothing more. That's all I know about them.

So you don't know who they are, why they did it or what they would do if we withdrew from Iraq but you do know that we can negotiate and reason with them. And you presumably think that we should.

All I have attempted to do is defend people's legitimate right to have a theory of their motivation without being stigmatised as a sympathiser.

And you did that well,as I have already acknowledged. And although you were defending the "motivators" against me, I never used the term sympathiser.

[Porty]

Everyone's disposable income could be increasing at the same rate so your statement doesn't hold. ?

Inequality, the gap between rich and poor. The distribution of income within a population. Independent of the actual numeric values. That is what the Gini coefficient is designed and accepted to measure. If the figure rises, the gap is increasing. The figure is rising so the gap is increasing. So my statement does hold. Its a good enough measure for the UN, so it'll do for me.

Amd me, but your statement said:

it would seem that for disposable income, which for most of us is what matters, is on the way up, ie the gap is increasing.

As far as I can see you didnt mention the Gini in that statement. You refered to disposable income, in any case I accepted the point about the gap increasing.
Quote from me "However, from the Gini graph it does appear that although Income levels are increasing the gap is also widening. As a plus point for the Governmenti it is pointed out that policies of indirect taxation and means tested benefits has slowed the pace of the differential. "

[xxxx]

As far as I can see you didnt mention the Gini in that statement. You refered to disposable income, in any case I accepted the point about the gap increasing.

Look further, its in the first half of the sentence

f you are looking at income inequality rather tha poverty rates, the standard measure is the gini coefficient
trends for uk here:

http://www.britain.tv/community_british ... lity.shtml

it would seem that for disposable income, which for most of us is what matters, is on the way up, ie the gap is increasing.

[Porty]

My bad, in any case and as I have already said and said at the time, I accept it.

Do you agree that is we are to pick UK "poverty" as one of the areas in which we measure Blair's performance., should we look at the whole picture on poverty?

Would the New Policy Institute be an acceptable source?

[xxxx]

So you don't know who they are, why they did it or what they would do if we withdrew from Iraq but you do know that we can negotiate and reason with them. And you presumably think that we should.

No
Where did I say that?
I said that it was a perfectly logical progression if you hold with the theory that the Invasion and its consequences are the motivations of those who carried out the bombings.

[xxxx]

My bad, in any case and as I have already said and said at the time, I accept it.

Do you agree that is we are to pick UK "poverty" as one of the areas in which we measure Blair's performance., should we look at the whole picture on poverty?

Would the New Policy Institute be an acceptable source?

Its Dc's topic really, I, as ever, was just trying to help, though it gets wearing when you require every word to be justified, even the ones you don't read.

NPI seem fine to me, IFS have ususlly been pretty good

[Porty]

So you don't know who they are, why they did it or what they would do if we withdrew from Iraq but you do know that we can negotiate and reason with them. And you presumably think that we should.

No
Where did I say that?
I said that it was a perfectly logical progression if you hold with the theory that the Invasion and its consequences are the motivations of those who carried out the bombings.

So if it is just a theoryand I agree that it is. Do you agree that any attempt to use the theory as evidence that Blair is to blame is spurious.