Tony Blair - world's strategy for countering Islamist extremism flawed

 

FILE PHOTO: Tony Blair, Former Prime Minister, Great Britain and Northern Ireland speaks at the Milken Institute 21st Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., April 30, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Blake

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will warn on Thursday that the threat from Islamist militants is growing and the current approach for tackling the threat will fail unless there is a global strategy to tackle the roots of extremism.

 

Launching a new "Global Extremism Monitor" by his Institute for Global Change that tracks incidents of Islamist extremism, Blair will say that "security alone will never be enough" and governments need to focus more on prevention.

 

In a report, his institute found there are 121 violent Islamist groups operating globally and they were responsible for more than 84,000 deaths in 2017, mainly in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Nigeria.

 

Blair, Labour prime minister from 1997 to 2007, said the world spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year on new security at airports and counter-terrorism, but only a fraction of that amount on measures to tackle the underlying ideology.

 

He instead calls for higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism.

 

"Security measures will be vital. But security alone will never be enough. It will only slow the violence," Blair said. "Unless there is a global will to meet the depth of the challenges, the ideology of Islamism will grow—and with it, the violence. It is time to act."

 

The former prime minister, who led Britain into the Iraq conflict in 2003, has admitted in the past that the invasion was partly responsible for the rise of Islamic State, which until last year controlled large areas in Syria and Iraq.

 

Blair said Muslims were the main victims of Islamist extremism with two-thirds of all attacks aimed at civilians taking place in Muslim-majority countries.

 

(Reporting By Andrew MacAskill; editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-13

Shouldn't he shut up for good, and hope that the world forgets him?

Oh dear, is he still alive 

2 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

Shouldn't he shut up for good, and hope that the world forgets him?

Wishful thinking, but here is the probable reason why this will not happen......

On a lecture by lecture basis, Blair is likely the world’s best paid speaker. In 2009, he made almost $616,000 for two half-hour speeches given in the Philippines, raking in over $10,000 a minute.

"investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism."

 

Isn't that what the US was doing when they financed Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when (of course) the Soviets were in charge?

 

Blairs bank accounts must have dropped a few million, so he starts spouting off in the hope he is noticed, and gets a few big paying speaking events.

1 hour ago, arithai12 said:

Shouldn't he shut up for good, and hope that the world forgets him?

Not much chance of that. The only viable option may be International Criminal Court indictments for him, Bush the Younger and Cheney re:Iraq War.

20 minutes ago, pegman said:

Not much chance of that. The only viable option may be International Criminal Court indictments for him, Bush the Younger and Cheney re:Iraq War.

 

Beat that drum...."viable" in your fantasies, perhaps.

This B...st.d was the one who flung the doors wide open to allow anybody to enter the UK no if's or but's everybody, where are are the assassins when you need them, oh i forgot we the taxpayer have to provide 24hr security for this cretin and his brood!

I agree with him that "governments need to focus more on prevention", but what incredible hypocritical chutzpah from a man who was leader of a government that then and now supports and sell arms to racist apartheid regimes, unelected aristocracies and corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

This from one of the men who led the charge to start a war that ruined a country and spawned these terrorists such as ISIS, on the phoney pretext of looking for non existent WMD. 

OP..
"The former prime minister, who led Britain into the Iraq conflict in 2003, has admitted in the past that the invasion was partly responsible for the rise of Islamic State, which until last year controlled large areas in Syria and Iraq"

Who's paying the tab for Tony's per diem these days?

5 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I agree with him that "governments need to focus more on prevention", but what incredible hypocritical chutzpah from a man who was leader of a government that then and now supports and sell arms to racist apartheid regimes, unelected aristocracies and corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

This from one of the men who led the charge to start a war that ruined a country and spawned these terrorists such as ISIS, on the phoney pretext of looking for non existent WMD. 

OP..
"The former prime minister, who led Britain into the Iraq conflict in 2003, has admitted in the past that the invasion was partly responsible for the rise of Islamic State, which until last year controlled large areas in Syria and Iraq"

Good strategy really , instead of Countries having wars .

Destabilise them and get them to fight each other in a civil war .

Instead of Iraq waging war on other Countries , get the internal factions to fight among themselves and sell them arms, for good measure

3 hours ago, arithai12 said:

Shouldn't he shut up for good, and hope that the world forgets him?

He is just another politician still intent on feathering his own nest .   Lets not for forget he is still responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq along with Bush,  which was the starting gun for the rise of Muslim fundamentalism outside of Afghanistan.  In a fair world he and his pal would be up before the ICC defending himself against war crimes.

 

His support and allowing British lives to be lost accelerated the fall of a Iran from what was Suddams iron rod control, to an all out grab by every militant under the sun that resulted in 10s of thousands of innocent civilian lives being lost and providing the ideal ground for ISIS to organise and prosper .  The stupidity of which is stil apparent today.

 

Now this excuse for a human being is trying to tell the world that the strategy for countering Islamic terrorism is flawed.   Well it is a direct result of him pandering to Bush's need to kill a few thousand people that has provided the Muslims with a good reason to mistrust the West, and Blair is now saying its flawed.

 

After Margarat Thatcher's contrivance to keep herself in office via the Falklands war he is the next worst war monger of recent times responsible deaths of thousands.   Evil hypocrite

 

 

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Good strategy really , instead of Countries having wars .

Destabilise them and get them to fight each other in a civil war .

Instead of Iraq waging war on other Countries , get the internal factions to fight among themselves and sell them arms, for good measure

I agree that that is exactly how his and the current UK government operate. Just pointing out how hypocritical Blair is now to suggest leaders should tackle the causes of terrorism spawning resentment that was actually created by him.

"Security measures will be vital. But security alone will never be enough. It will only slow the violence," Blair said. "Unless there is a global will to meet the depth of the challenges, the ideology of Islamism will grow—and with it, the violence. It is time to act."

 

 

“He instead calls for higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism”

 

 

The above points made by Blair are entirely reasonable.

 

But please do let your hatred of the man override your ability to see the sense in what he said.

2 hours ago, blazes said:

"investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism."

 

Isn't that what the US was doing when they financed Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when (of course) the Soviets were in charge?

 

In a word:

 

No!

18 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

After Margarat Thatcher's contrivance to keep herself in office via the Falklands war

Yeah, right, she forced those poor Argentinians to invade didn't she?

Blair got some things wrong, with the benefit of hindsight

 

These days, the man speaks a great deal of sense.

 

I don't care what he, or anyone else, earns.

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

"Security measures will be vital. But security alone will never be enough. It will only slow the violence," Blair said. "Unless there is a global will to meet the depth of the challenges, the ideology of Islamism will grow—and with it, the violence. It is time to act."

 

 

“He instead calls for higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism”

 

 

The above points made by Blair are entirely reasonable.

 

But please do let your hatred of the man override your ability to see the sense in what he said.

 

What planet are you living on, Chomper????

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In a word:

 

No!

 

Eloquent as ever.....

40 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I agree with him that "governments need to focus more on prevention", but what incredible hypocritical chutzpah from a man who was leader of a government that then and now supports and sell arms to racist apartheid regimes, unelected aristocracies and corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

This from one of the men who led the charge to start a war that ruined a country and spawned these terrorists such as ISIS, on the phoney pretext of looking for non existent WMD. 

OP..
"The former prime minister, who led Britain into the Iraq conflict in 2003, has admitted in the past that the invasion was partly responsible for the rise of Islamic State, which until last year controlled large areas in Syria and Iraq"

100% correct Dev.

People in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones.

He was wrong then and he is wrong now.

With regards to Iraq,Tony Moroney was so far up George W's chamber,he needed a torch to navigate.

5 minutes ago, phitsanulokjohn said:

100% correct Dev.

People in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones.

He was wrong then and he is wrong now.

With regards to Iraq,Tony Moroney was so far up George W's chamber,he needed a torch to navigate.

He was wrong then and he is wrong now.

 

You can presumably explain in what way ‘he’s wrong now’, I’d be interested to hear your arguments backing up your declaration, give it a go.

I wouldn't pay a dime to hear ANY politician speak - past or present. 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

"Security measures will be vital. But security alone will never be enough. It will only slow the violence," Blair said. "Unless there is a global will to meet the depth of the challenges, the ideology of Islamism will grow—and with it, the violence. It is time to act."

 

 

“He instead calls for higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism”

 

 

The above points made by Blair are entirely reasonable.

 

But please do let your hatred of the man override your ability to see the sense in what he said.

I know what you mean, but Blair has proven himself to not only be a liar, but also someone who will do or say anything to gain more money/power.

 

Consequently, it's understandable why any comments he makes should/must be treated with derision.  You can pretty much guarantee that his latest comments are based on the hope that he will gain some well-paid role over-seeing "higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism"......

 

I suspect that most people already agree about "investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter terrorism" - but as another poster pointed out, Blair shares a large part of the responsibly for creating the rise in terrorism!

 

In view of this, it takes one hell of a lot of nerve/audacity/hunger for power and money for someone in his position to comment to the media on this topic.  One that he was partially responsible (as he finally admits) for creating.....

4 hours ago, AhFarangJa said:

Wishful thinking, but here is the probable reason why this will not happen......

On a lecture by lecture basis, Blair is likely the world’s best paid speaker. In 2009, he made almost $616,000 for two half-hour speeches given in the Philippines, raking in over $10,000 a minute.

I can understand why people would pay money to throw rotten fruit and veg. at Blair - but pay to listen to him??!!

1 hour ago, nahkit said:

Yeah, right, she forced those poor Argentinians to invade didn't she?

Were you actually born then ? By way of that ridiculous comment I doubt you were.  Read the history and see exactly which Argentinians  were allowed, how the UK were warned at the UN ( which they ignored)  and then the pretense later.  But it worked for her, she got re-elected.

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I know what you mean, but Blair has proven himself to not only be a liar, but also someone who will do or say anything to gain more money/power.

 

Consequently, it's understandable why any comments he makes should/must be treated with derision.  You can pretty much guarantee that his latest comments are based on the hope that he will gain some well-paid role over-seeing "higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism"......

 

I suspect that most people already agree about "investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter terrorism" - but as another poster pointed out, Blair shares a large part of the responsibly for creating the rise in terrorism!

 

It takes one hell of a lot of nerve/audacity/hunger for power and money to comment to the media on this topic.  One that he was partially responsible (as he finally admits) for creating.....

OK so you use your own cynicism to avoid listening to what he said.

 

That’s no measure of the sense in his suggestions.

27 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I know what you mean, but Blair has proven himself to not only be a liar, but also someone who will do or say anything to gain more money/power.

 

Consequently, it's understandable why any comments he makes should/must be treated with derision.  You can pretty much guarantee that his latest comments are based on the hope that he will gain some well-paid role over-seeing "higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism"......

 

I suspect that most people already agree about "investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter terrorism" - but as another poster pointed out, Blair shares a large part of the responsibly for creating the rise in terrorism!

 

In view of this, it takes one hell of a lot of nerve/audacity/hunger for power and money for someone in his position to comment to the media on this topic.  One that he was partially responsible (as he finally admits) for creating.....

 

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK so you use your own cynicism to avoid listening to what he said.

 

That’s no measure of the sense in his suggestions.

Not at all.  I treat his comments with derision for the reasons quoted in my post that you've ignored. i.e.:-

 

 "I suspect that most people already agree about "investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter terrorism" .

 

My 'beef' is that blair (of all people!) would have the nerve to comment to the media on a subject for which he is partially responsible!

 

And, (sorry about this) to repeat another of my comments quoted above:-

 

"You can pretty much guarantee that his latest comments are based on the hope that he will gain some well-paid role over-seeing "higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism"...."

An off topic post has been removed. 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He was wrong then and he is wrong now.

 

You can presumably explain in what way ‘he’s wrong now’, I’d be interested to hear your arguments backing up your declaration, give it a go.

Trying to figure out exactly  what Blair is promoting..

 

Some vague extracts from the OP..
"governments need to focus more on prevention.

..only a fraction of that amount on measures to tackle the underlying ideology.

..He instead calls for higher spending on education and development, investing in war-torn states and supporting Muslim leaders working to counter extremism.

..."Unless there is a global will to meet the depth of the challenges, the ideology of Islamism will grow—and with it, the violence. It is time to act.""

 

Not quite sure what Blair means by this? Increase spending on infrastructue and education? Re-educating people that extremism in religion is bad (I agree).

 

But he does not seem to be advocating any changes in UK and other western governments' interference in Middle Eastern affairs which causes the resentment that drives young people into radicalization. That's the root cause of the extremism. When young people feel so frustrated that the west hypocritically talks about democracy, civil/human rights and freedom, then seems to quash their dreams by supporting their corrupt governments. Think the west's failure to support the seeds of better societies in the Arab spring.

 

It's all very well building schools and hospitals, but what's the point if one also sells arms to corrupt fascist regimes to destroy them.

 

What radical changes do you think Blair has in mind?