web analytics


By ATWadmin On March 15th, 2008

JonathanPowell_228x337.jpgOne of the major themes in my forthcoming book "Unionism Decayed" on the Northern Ireland "peace process" is that its depraved model of accommodating terrorists is a toxic template that must not be applied in dealing with other terror groups – if we want to see the values of our democracies preserved. So, no big surprise to hear one of those most intimately in the Northern Ireland process, Jonathan Powell, witter that  Western governments must talk to terror groups including Hamas, al-Qaida and the Taliban to persuade them to stop their campaigns of violence!

Powell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff from 1995 to 2007, said the Northern Ireland peace settlement was made possible through a secret channel the government established with the Irish Republican Army – and that similar lines should now be created with other terror groups. So, secret talks with Al Queda, Hamas, and the Taliban. Concessions to be made, deals to be cut. 

Powell’s advice represents EVERYTHING that I oppose. I sincerely believe that the best way to deal with terrorists is to terrorise them, kill them where you find them, show them no mercy and relentlessly track them down. If they have the support of local populations, as Hamas has in Gaza for example, then economic sanctions should be applied to punish such depravity. The political apologists for terrorism should be treated with the utmost disrespect, and the entire left-wing notion that appeasement works dismissed for the utter cant it is. Talking of cant, Jonathan Powell is an absolute moral bankrupt whose cheer-leading for talks with the terror group that has murdered thousands of innocents is an affront to all civilised people. He also fails to understand that militant Islam is not interested in having a chat with us, it is much more keen on killing us in sufficient numbers that our leaders submit. Powell’s advice is music to their ears.

14 Responses to “TIME TO TALK TO OSAMA….”

  1. I take it that he is not related to the last truly patriotic English politician, – Enoch Powell…:-)

    That there are many areas where a deal making ability is to be valued and admired,is not denied.

    The area of national security is not one of them, you don’t make such appeasing overtures when people’s lives are at stake.

    I can only think that – like so many of his colleagues, – he has very little understanding of what he is dealing with. That he spent some of his formative years with the BBC may explain much.

    Is he the definitive political spiv, selling cut price, and ‘past the sell by date’ peace agreements off the back of his van?

  2. It is impossible to compare the two situations. The issue in the north was which version of constitutional democracy the population was going to live under. Negotiations were possible (like it or not) because there was something to negotiate.

  3. But Henry, the crux of the argument is should the Brits have talked to the IRA while said provos were still engaged in terrorism?

  4. Powell wasn’t calling for immediate talks with Al Quida or the Taleban. But merely holding out the possibility of future talks is enough to undermine morale among British troops in Afghanistan.

    How can you negotiate with religious fanatics? The very basis of their position is utterly irrational by definition. They want the superstition religion of their sky-god to prevail and they don’t care how many innocents perish in that struggle.

  5. Henry94,

    Quite agree, there was someone to negotiate with, and something to negotiate about.

    Radical Islam has not yet reached the stage where they are amenable to listening, let alone negotiating on anything. They need to be ‘softened up’ a bit more.

    While they feel they are in a position of strength, they will continue to terrorise, and any effort at appeasment now would only be seen to them as a sign of weakness, – which assumption would probably be correct.

    Do you think that had Hitler been appeased, either at the start, or later on, in WWII, that he would have ‘negotiated’, I don’t think so, because he felt he was always in a position of strength, he felt no need to negotiate. He was prepared to die rather than negotiate a peace, likewise with the Islamic extremists.

    As you say the situation in NI was very different, both sides, seemingly, having lost the taste for continued conflict without end.

  6. Charles

    The crux of the argument in republican areas was should the IRA be talking to the Brits. That wasn’t an easy sell either. But both sides had concluded that no military victory was possible an that there had to be a negotiated peace. Dreams of a military victory existed and still exist on the extremes of both sides.

    But usually by people who didn’t have to do the fighting.

    It is a huge mistake to allow Powell to get away with comparing the two situations because that allows him to pursue the idea. Far better to ask questions which emphasise the differences.

    For example,

    1. The IRA was riddled with informers which gave the British government a huge negotiating advantage. How true is this in the case of Islamic terror.

    2. What would a settlement look like? For Israel? For women in Afghanistan?

    3. What are the pressures for peace on the other side?

  7. Peter,

    Good point, the very mention of negotiation would undermine morale, after all who wants to get killed today when figuratively speaking, the war may be over tomorrow?

    And it is hardly an encouragement to our ‘friends’ in NATO to send some troops – even a few – when they think it’s all over bar the talking…

  8. Yes – and Henry makes good points. But MY point is that the same lousy appeasing instinct which has disfigured British policy for years is at work here, JUST as it was with the IRA. I see no difference in the principle that there can ne NO COMPROMISE between right and wrong. Terrorism is wrong.

  9. But it seems that the Northern Irish template for peace is being used around the world. Wasn’t there a delegation of Iraqis to Oslo awhile back to study and be sold this template?

    If Nulab pushes this template on the West vis a vis Islamic terrorism, we do so at our own peril.

  10. I have mixed feelings on this, because I remember Major saying it would turn his stomach to talk to the IRA, and then they did it. Where was the hunger for peace? Was it within the IRA? If so why is there discrepancy about the letter((we need help to bring it to an end) mentioned in the house of commons about who ‘sent’ it?

    Is there really a flaw in majors argument? Did ‘Robert’ over step his authority and send it without the knowledge of the government in order to get them to agree to these talks??

    I don’t think so. I think as PM John Major had to establish who sent the letter before the government move any further, and I think major and the government were in a position to establish exactly who sent the letter.

    So if there was a hunger for peace within the republican movement before 1994 – and as henry said, a recognition that they’d fought to a standstill – were mcguinness and kelly really peacemaking? Did mcguinness/kelly/adams bring the IRA to heel and get them to give up violence for political ends? If so how will they go down in history?

    Who have we with in Al – Q who wants peace? Who would be prepared to do a deal on their behalf? Bin Laden? If not – which one of his hench men would do it, either with his approval or without his approval, and could they bring their organisation along with them from war to peace for political ends?

    If not, why is Powell spouting this now? Could he with all of his insider knowledge about government be so stupid as to compare two situations that are so dissimmilar?

  11. It’s just possible that many of us in the West regard Al-Qa’ida as a homogeneous beast. It is not. Witness the chaps who attempted to drive a carload of explosives into Glasgow airport: brainy individuals to a man, sophisticated and otherwise of excellent character.

    What I’m saying is that "the enemy" is not easily pigeonholed. Admittedly your average A-Q operative is a fanatic semi-automaton, but the others? Personally I don’t believe that even Bin Laden himself is indisposed to reason.

    If we reject the avenue of dialogue then what’s left? Perhaps the worst-case scenario: that of perennial terrorism in the name of Muhammad (piss be upon him). And believe me, this is a future we could very well be facing.

    Truly I don’t quite know how to respond to Powell’s initiative. I sense it’s doomed to failure; nevertheless I wish him well. Anything is preferable to the worst-case scenario I’ve outlined above.

  12. …perennial terrorism in the name of Muhammad (piss be upon him). And believe me, this is a future we could very well be facing.

    a future that many would seemingly welcome.

  13. Saw Powell on Andrew Marr this morning. He certainly wasnt calling for immediate negotiations with Al-Quaeda. He was talking for some form of communioations channel, which he thought may already exist.

  14. Many on the left have tried to use the Northern Ireland peace deal as a template, it will just not work with Islam. The best you can hope for is a ten year hudna or truce which they will break when they feel strong enough.

    Perhaps this lickspittle will be out of power when the chickens come home to roost, that is all he can think about, I sometimes wonder if he thinks about his children or granschildren, what they will have to face because of his stupidity and ignorance?