Open Letter to David Cameron
I was disappointed by an interview I saw with David Cameron on BBC News 24 today. He could have taken a sensible course, in line with every piece of advice the government has been given in the last several years, and backed the content of the British Mulsim Group's letter; but instead he chose to deny the obvious truth. In the spirit of the time, I decided to write him an open letter.
Hello Mr Cameron
I have to say, your willingness to think for yourself and give your own opinion has caught my attention recently. Your defence of hoodies is a good example. It showed, quite frankly, a capacity to see through and cut through the rhetoric of the political classes. It contrasted starkly with the Labour Party leader, and it threw the usually accurate caricatures of the Conservative Party into sharp relief.
But David, it's an all-round deal... we're not looking for a political leader who thinks outside-the-box on a few peripheral issues.
You have supported the government line that the letter from Muslim leaders to Tony Blair is ill-advised. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see that the letter tells the true story. You must have heard a government minister being mauled this week on the Today Programme, when it was pointed out to him that the Joint Intelligence Committee had said before the Iraq War that the result would be increasing terrorism and support for Al Qaeda, and similarly after the Iraq War to say that that's exactly what had happened. It's exactly the same thing which this letter says.
The guy on Today tried arguing that terrorism pre-dated the war, that the most recent alleged attack couldn't be associated because it pre-dated the UK support for The Lebanon.
I am going to prove to you that radicalisation happens as a result of the UK government's foreign policy. Are you ready for this?
The UK government's foreign policy has radicalised me. I am white, English born, and of Anglo-Saxon stock as far back in history as I'm aware. I have no religion. I dislike most of everything Islam stands for. But when I see this country's leader carrying out illegal wars in my name as a British citizen; when I see him standing for oppression and as a lapdog of a far-right administration in the USA; when I see members of his party and yours support his line, and others too weak to stand against him effectively, I have nowhere to go.
One million people marched in London against the war in Iraq before it happened, and they were ignored. Where is the recourse to democracy? The Secretary General of the UN said the war was illegal, but nobody has been charged with war crimes. Where's the justice? When the investigations were made into the issues surrounding the Iraq War, all evidence from the Hutton enquiry was posted on the Internet. I read it, and most of it I remembered from the time the news originally emerged. The conclusions were inevitable based on the facts, and yet the government and its leader were let off the hook. "Whitewash", the Independent called it, on its memorable front page. There isn't any point following an argument that the truth is decided by the appointed judge: people have brains for themselves, and they can see a result that contradicts all the evidence when it is placed before them.
Forget radicalisation by Islamic extremists in Pakistan. I was radicalised by Tony Blair.
British Governments have said that it is the duty of the people to rise up and form their own future. They said it 15 years or so ago to the Curds in Iraq. They have said it to the people of Zimbabwe, and to lots of other countries when the British government wants to wash their hands of injustice. What is right for the British government to apply to other countries must be right to be applied to them.
I said I'd prove to you that radicalisation happens as a result of the UK government's foreign policy. How can I blame suicide bombers like the Leeds guys who instigated the London attacks?
You like examples, David. And I quite like your examples, too. And I've got an example for you. Suppose you lived in a country with a thousand soldiers, and you're attacked by a country with a million soldiers. A thousand to one. If you take into account the weapons superiority, I guess that's the kind of odds your talking about when UK and the USA attack Iraq, when the USA and the UK support Israel attacking the Lebanon. There's no way that you can win with conventional warfare. You'd just have to make the best use you could with the resources at your disposal.
It was apparently a surprise to the UK/USA coalition when they found the Iraqis carrying out guerrilla warfare. What other option was open to them? Were they surprised because they thought Iraq should give up gracefully against an invading army of incontestable force? Guerrilla warfare was the logical course, and I predicted it from the start.
When Palestinians strap bombs to themselves and go into Israel to blow themselves to bits, how can I condemn them? They are fighting for their liberty against an oppressor that has stolen their land, but whose military force is so overwhelming they have no chance to dent it. The only reason for Israelis to be discomforted, to think twice about continuing to annexe land, to feel insecure and possibly look for a resolution to the situation, is those suicide bombers.
Hezbollah are fighting as a guerrilla army, who seem to be representing Arabic countries in general against Israel. Similar situation... Israel is the oppressor, supported by the USA. What other choice have they got, if they want to impact the situation?
British people saw what Tony Blair took us to war in Iraq on a false prosectus. Afterwards, it surprised me that he was so successful in surviving at every step, when his justification for war were shown to be lies. Time and time again he succeeded against all reason - the "sexing up of the dossier" affair... the BBC held the sword of truth and lost big time (a major hit against our democracy), the Government were lying through their teeth and won through. Oh, how many such episodes? It was like a soap opera. The whole war in Iraq was done without any democratic mandate.
But afterwards the democratic mandate was given, because the British people put him back in power. Because they endorsed his action in Iraq? Well, no - because you Tories were a pathetic opposition and in any case took the same policy as Blair on the war against Iraq; and because - frankly - they didn't care ever so much. Iraq is a long way away, and deaths of tens of thousands of people in a faraway land mean very little to most British people.
After the general election which returned Blair, every British person is responsible for the war in Iraq: they voted for a war criminal to lead their country, after all, and thereby gave a tacit endorsement for everything he had done in their name. At that point, Blair's actions became our actions. I include myself, vocal as I am in opposition to the whole deal.
There were these types of people in the UK... people who agreed with Blair and voted for him; people who disagreed with him about the war but voted for him anyway; people who couldn't care enough about the situation to vote at all; people who voted for someone other than Blair, but for whom the Iraq war and everything surrounding it would not have made a difference anyway. What percentage would you say we're up to so far? And the last two groups... the group which includes me, who were passionately against the war but evidently not passionate enough to stop it happening; and the actual innocents - the children who are too young to take part in the democratic process, together with those who for whatever reason were unable to express an opinion. In consideration this final group I look back to the Government to see their justification for killing innocents... "there are always innocent casualties in war", they say.
What's good enough justification for the Government is good enough for their opponents. It's only fair.
The British army dropped cluster bombs in residential areas in Iraq. It contravenes international war, but they did it anyway. What defines the British as legitimate warriors and not terrorists? I can't find a difference. They invaded a sovereign nation without a mandate from the UN... without even a mandate from NATO... without a mandate from a single international organisation. They invaded against the advice of their own intelligence, even though they tried to cook up their own intelligence justification. They invaded on a false premise, when they knew there was no 'clear and immediate threat' posed to the UK by Iraq. By any accepted measure, they broke international law, therefore they are war criminals, QED.
What is the argument that Tony Blair is not a terrorist? That he is a national leader? Piffle. Because he believed in what he was doing? So did the guys from Leeds.
And what stops me from becoming a suicide bomber? Well, I suppose it's just that I don't care enough. I have to say that if I were the guy who was looking into Mohamed Sidique Kahn's eyes as he detonated his bomb, and if I could have seen into his mind and seen his intentions at that time, I wouldn't have blamed him. I may have cursed him for leaving me half-dead, but I wouldn't blame him for his action.
Sidique and his gang cared. They cared because they were Muslim, and the crimes against Iraq were committed against their brothers. It's completely understandable to me. I don't care about Islam - in fact I oppose it, so it's pretty difficult for me to explode with passion for their cause. But I certainly can understand what they're about. If people have nothing to lose, they have nothing to fear. So it's best not to put people into that position; wouldn't you say so?
I have to say that if someone put me in Sidique's situation... if a state blew up the people I consider my brothers, the people who I love most, I would be the most dangerous person in the world. I would avenge my brothers by any means, until I was stopped or killed. Nobody would have to brainwash me to do it.
Do you understand what I've told you? I realise that you've probably not even read it. I do not hide my views... you can read them on my blog, you can ask any of the people who come into contact with me. I tell people what I believe, and I always speak the truth.
What's the significance to you? I'm not trying to say that there are a huge number of people with my strength of feeling: I have simply shown you proof that radicalisation results from the UK foreign policy. Please don't deny it again.
But there are huge numbers... vast numbers of people who believe that Britain is operated as a puppet on a string by the White House, by a neo-conservative administration (gobbledegook for 'fascist regime'?), and having the British majority views on foreign policy ignored.
At the moment, you are entirely out of touch with all such people on a subject which is very important to them. Millions of others are worried by terrorism, and you could give them a clearly considered, non-extremist analysis of what is happening and why. People would make sense of it, and they would support you if you showed them how you would change it.
Sure, you're tainted with the Tory support for the war against Iraq. You're tainted with a shed load of things. It's time to rise above it. And if you do, I put it to you that many people who would historically have rather eaten their own vomit than vote conservative, will start to reconsider their stance.
All the best
- andi
Hello Mr Cameron
I have to say, your willingness to think for yourself and give your own opinion has caught my attention recently. Your defence of hoodies is a good example. It showed, quite frankly, a capacity to see through and cut through the rhetoric of the political classes. It contrasted starkly with the Labour Party leader, and it threw the usually accurate caricatures of the Conservative Party into sharp relief.
But David, it's an all-round deal... we're not looking for a political leader who thinks outside-the-box on a few peripheral issues.
You have supported the government line that the letter from Muslim leaders to Tony Blair is ill-advised. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see that the letter tells the true story. You must have heard a government minister being mauled this week on the Today Programme, when it was pointed out to him that the Joint Intelligence Committee had said before the Iraq War that the result would be increasing terrorism and support for Al Qaeda, and similarly after the Iraq War to say that that's exactly what had happened. It's exactly the same thing which this letter says.
The guy on Today tried arguing that terrorism pre-dated the war, that the most recent alleged attack couldn't be associated because it pre-dated the UK support for The Lebanon.
I am going to prove to you that radicalisation happens as a result of the UK government's foreign policy. Are you ready for this?
The UK government's foreign policy has radicalised me. I am white, English born, and of Anglo-Saxon stock as far back in history as I'm aware. I have no religion. I dislike most of everything Islam stands for. But when I see this country's leader carrying out illegal wars in my name as a British citizen; when I see him standing for oppression and as a lapdog of a far-right administration in the USA; when I see members of his party and yours support his line, and others too weak to stand against him effectively, I have nowhere to go.
One million people marched in London against the war in Iraq before it happened, and they were ignored. Where is the recourse to democracy? The Secretary General of the UN said the war was illegal, but nobody has been charged with war crimes. Where's the justice? When the investigations were made into the issues surrounding the Iraq War, all evidence from the Hutton enquiry was posted on the Internet. I read it, and most of it I remembered from the time the news originally emerged. The conclusions were inevitable based on the facts, and yet the government and its leader were let off the hook. "Whitewash", the Independent called it, on its memorable front page. There isn't any point following an argument that the truth is decided by the appointed judge: people have brains for themselves, and they can see a result that contradicts all the evidence when it is placed before them.
Forget radicalisation by Islamic extremists in Pakistan. I was radicalised by Tony Blair.
British Governments have said that it is the duty of the people to rise up and form their own future. They said it 15 years or so ago to the Curds in Iraq. They have said it to the people of Zimbabwe, and to lots of other countries when the British government wants to wash their hands of injustice. What is right for the British government to apply to other countries must be right to be applied to them.
I said I'd prove to you that radicalisation happens as a result of the UK government's foreign policy. How can I blame suicide bombers like the Leeds guys who instigated the London attacks?
You like examples, David. And I quite like your examples, too. And I've got an example for you. Suppose you lived in a country with a thousand soldiers, and you're attacked by a country with a million soldiers. A thousand to one. If you take into account the weapons superiority, I guess that's the kind of odds your talking about when UK and the USA attack Iraq, when the USA and the UK support Israel attacking the Lebanon. There's no way that you can win with conventional warfare. You'd just have to make the best use you could with the resources at your disposal.
It was apparently a surprise to the UK/USA coalition when they found the Iraqis carrying out guerrilla warfare. What other option was open to them? Were they surprised because they thought Iraq should give up gracefully against an invading army of incontestable force? Guerrilla warfare was the logical course, and I predicted it from the start.
When Palestinians strap bombs to themselves and go into Israel to blow themselves to bits, how can I condemn them? They are fighting for their liberty against an oppressor that has stolen their land, but whose military force is so overwhelming they have no chance to dent it. The only reason for Israelis to be discomforted, to think twice about continuing to annexe land, to feel insecure and possibly look for a resolution to the situation, is those suicide bombers.
Hezbollah are fighting as a guerrilla army, who seem to be representing Arabic countries in general against Israel. Similar situation... Israel is the oppressor, supported by the USA. What other choice have they got, if they want to impact the situation?
British people saw what Tony Blair took us to war in Iraq on a false prosectus. Afterwards, it surprised me that he was so successful in surviving at every step, when his justification for war were shown to be lies. Time and time again he succeeded against all reason - the "sexing up of the dossier" affair... the BBC held the sword of truth and lost big time (a major hit against our democracy), the Government were lying through their teeth and won through. Oh, how many such episodes? It was like a soap opera. The whole war in Iraq was done without any democratic mandate.
But afterwards the democratic mandate was given, because the British people put him back in power. Because they endorsed his action in Iraq? Well, no - because you Tories were a pathetic opposition and in any case took the same policy as Blair on the war against Iraq; and because - frankly - they didn't care ever so much. Iraq is a long way away, and deaths of tens of thousands of people in a faraway land mean very little to most British people.
After the general election which returned Blair, every British person is responsible for the war in Iraq: they voted for a war criminal to lead their country, after all, and thereby gave a tacit endorsement for everything he had done in their name. At that point, Blair's actions became our actions. I include myself, vocal as I am in opposition to the whole deal.
There were these types of people in the UK... people who agreed with Blair and voted for him; people who disagreed with him about the war but voted for him anyway; people who couldn't care enough about the situation to vote at all; people who voted for someone other than Blair, but for whom the Iraq war and everything surrounding it would not have made a difference anyway. What percentage would you say we're up to so far? And the last two groups... the group which includes me, who were passionately against the war but evidently not passionate enough to stop it happening; and the actual innocents - the children who are too young to take part in the democratic process, together with those who for whatever reason were unable to express an opinion. In consideration this final group I look back to the Government to see their justification for killing innocents... "there are always innocent casualties in war", they say.
What's good enough justification for the Government is good enough for their opponents. It's only fair.
The British army dropped cluster bombs in residential areas in Iraq. It contravenes international war, but they did it anyway. What defines the British as legitimate warriors and not terrorists? I can't find a difference. They invaded a sovereign nation without a mandate from the UN... without even a mandate from NATO... without a mandate from a single international organisation. They invaded against the advice of their own intelligence, even though they tried to cook up their own intelligence justification. They invaded on a false premise, when they knew there was no 'clear and immediate threat' posed to the UK by Iraq. By any accepted measure, they broke international law, therefore they are war criminals, QED.
What is the argument that Tony Blair is not a terrorist? That he is a national leader? Piffle. Because he believed in what he was doing? So did the guys from Leeds.
And what stops me from becoming a suicide bomber? Well, I suppose it's just that I don't care enough. I have to say that if I were the guy who was looking into Mohamed Sidique Kahn's eyes as he detonated his bomb, and if I could have seen into his mind and seen his intentions at that time, I wouldn't have blamed him. I may have cursed him for leaving me half-dead, but I wouldn't blame him for his action.
Sidique and his gang cared. They cared because they were Muslim, and the crimes against Iraq were committed against their brothers. It's completely understandable to me. I don't care about Islam - in fact I oppose it, so it's pretty difficult for me to explode with passion for their cause. But I certainly can understand what they're about. If people have nothing to lose, they have nothing to fear. So it's best not to put people into that position; wouldn't you say so?
I have to say that if someone put me in Sidique's situation... if a state blew up the people I consider my brothers, the people who I love most, I would be the most dangerous person in the world. I would avenge my brothers by any means, until I was stopped or killed. Nobody would have to brainwash me to do it.
Do you understand what I've told you? I realise that you've probably not even read it. I do not hide my views... you can read them on my blog, you can ask any of the people who come into contact with me. I tell people what I believe, and I always speak the truth.
What's the significance to you? I'm not trying to say that there are a huge number of people with my strength of feeling: I have simply shown you proof that radicalisation results from the UK foreign policy. Please don't deny it again.
But there are huge numbers... vast numbers of people who believe that Britain is operated as a puppet on a string by the White House, by a neo-conservative administration (gobbledegook for 'fascist regime'?), and having the British majority views on foreign policy ignored.
At the moment, you are entirely out of touch with all such people on a subject which is very important to them. Millions of others are worried by terrorism, and you could give them a clearly considered, non-extremist analysis of what is happening and why. People would make sense of it, and they would support you if you showed them how you would change it.
Sure, you're tainted with the Tory support for the war against Iraq. You're tainted with a shed load of things. It's time to rise above it. And if you do, I put it to you that many people who would historically have rather eaten their own vomit than vote conservative, will start to reconsider their stance.
All the best
- andi
posted by Tsuchan at 8:00 am
3 Comments:
Ho-hum, here's the reply from Cameron's Office...
Dear Sir,
Thank you for emailing David Cameron – I'm replying on his behalf.
Thank you for writing and I do take on board what you say.
We are lucky, here in Britain, to be able to practise our different faiths in relative peace, harmony and tolerance. But we must also acknowledge that there are a few deeply misguided people who don't believe in mutual respect. We saw that here in Britain on the 7th of July last year. The world is now a dangerous place and there are no limits to the harm that some people are prepared to inflict on others. The recent UK threat has now been downgraded to severe but the Home Secretary warns that attacks are still highly likely. David Cameron has warned that the Government is failing to be robust enough in the fight against Islamic terrorism and extremism, and has called for more investment in policing and security measures, backed by more rigorous enforcement of the law to ensure that terrorist suspects and their supporters are prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned or deported.
David Cameron also criticised Labour ministers for a series of failings on national security, and described the attempt by alleged British-born Islamist terrorist to blow up passenger jets flying from UK airports as "deeply shocking" but "not surprising", and said: "I do not believe that the Government is doing enough to fight Islamist extremism at home, or to protect our security." While the Opposition wanted to work with the Government to protect our security the Government have done things they should not have done - like freeze the Home Office Budget for three years. There are things they have not done which they must do - like making intercept evidence available in court. And there are things they said they would do which they have not done - like following through on the Prime Minister's twelve point security plan and recommendations on community cohesion.
At present, counter-terrorism is just one of many competing priorities for the Home Secretary: he is unable to provide the strong and dedicated leadership required to respond to the challenge posed by international terrorism. We have proposed that there should be a single, cabinet-level minister to co-ordinate, and be accountable for, national security.
Conservatives have also long called for a single UK border police force to secure our borders and to deter and detect illegal immigrants. Our proposals have been supported by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the former President of ACPO and others. The Home Secretary’s announcement, in July, of uniforms for passport control officers does not go nearly far enough - it is simply window-dressing.
We also believe that a firm, fair, controlled immigration system is essential for good race and community relations, and for the orderly provision of public services. Conservatives have long called for an objective, points-based system to determine who we allow to enter the country and under what conditions. We are concerned that the numbers of immigrants and migrants in the country are under-estimated. As a result, many councils face burdens which are not properly funded by central government, with council tax payers having to foot the bill.
As you may also have seen, David Cameron when he became Leader announced the launch of a Policy Group on National and International Security, which will examine all aspects of the UK's national security, from both a domestic and an international perspective.
The National Security Group is looking at terrorism, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, threats from failed and failing states, the proliferation of unconventional weapons, the nature of our open society, and the need to build community cohesion in an increasingly diverse culture.
The Group is also investigating the structure of policing in the UK, including reform designed to bring local policing closer to local populations and to provide a fully effective force or forces to deal with regional, national, and international policing challenges, including international terrorism. The effectiveness of border control, the security services, and administrative structures in Whitehall to deal with the threat of terrorist attack, will also be analysed.
As part of its work on security, the group will also consider issues relating to social cohesion - including questions of community relations, immigration policy and their linkages with the UK's foreign policy.
At the same time, the group will examine the UK's geo-political positioning vis a vis the EU, NATO, relations with the USA and with Commonwealth Countries, as well as with less-developed countries and the emerging giants; and will also examine UK defence policy in the light of the current and emerging security challenges which the country faces.
-the full details of the policy group are on their website;
http://www.oursecuritychallenge.com
Thank you again for taking the trouble to write.
Yours sincerely,
David Beal
Correspondence Secretary
David Cameron's Office
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
www.conservatives.com
Ho yes, and my reply to the reply... why do I continue to waste my breath?
Dear David
Thank you for your reply.
I don't think you actually took on board what I said; otherwise it's more likely you'd have reported me to the security services than console me that wicked evil people are trying to wreck Britain. Well, I didn't expect you to read the e-mail anyway.
Regarding the content of your reply...
If the Conservative Party, through its leader and his more modern outlook and policy, is trying to make itself attractive to young people, the politically alienated and dispossessed, the recent public rhetoric is on the right lines. But the content of your reply isn't attractive at all to me – I suggest it's not attractive to very many of the previous non-conservative voters who you're trying to reach.
What I think, is that you need to distinguish between a willingness of the public to condemn the labour party opportunistically and out of habit because we want to get rid of them, and taking the right-wing approach of laying all of societies' woes at the doors of convenient scapegoats such as illegal immigrants.
My e-mail was about the connection between suicide bombers and British foreign policy. But your reply didn't even keep to that subject at a general level: it quickly changed to the tired old Tory theme of bashing illegal immigrants. Do you think that this kind of policy and rhetoric is going to win you many votes from ex-Liberal and ex-Labour voters? I think not.
It's not that some of your immigration policies individually don't make any sense... points system, border police, etc. But as soon as you connect illegal immigration with security, you turn me off Tories altogether. As soon as you justify immigration limitations on flimsy arguments like needing to manage public services I know that you know you're talking nonsense: public services are demand led... they will only be increased when existing demands are found to be too low... the idea that in a hundred years a government would ramp up housing, water supply, schools and hospitals in anticipation of future immigration just suggests you're all living on another planet.
So, thanks for helping me clear my mind and helping me reach a decision about voting Tory in the next election... I won't be.
All the best
- andi
test
Post a Comment
<< Home