One of the attractions for Blair in working with the United Arab Emirates and al-Sisi is apparently that the latter two have turned against the Muslim Brotherhood. Blair is a profound Islamophobe and hates the Muslim religious Right, even though he has been perfectly happy to shill for the Christian religious Right. Al-Sisi has declared the Muslim Brotherhood a “terrorist organization” despite the group’s decades of peaceful organizing and avoidance of violence. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have also lobbied the UK government to investigate the Brotherhood in Britain as a terrorist group….With his Neoliberal biases (urging privatization of public companies and goods) and his hatred of political Islam, Blair will reinforce the worst instincts of the current government. As he showed in his dalliance with Gaddafi, he is less interested in human rights than in profits for British firms. And that is likely the same trade-off he will make in Cairo.
Meanwhile, Ahmad Maher of April 6 and Manienoor El Masry of the Revolutionary Socialists languish in Gen. Sisi’s jails. Does Blair care about these youth leaders of the 2011 revolution, or are they now just inconvenient. Juan Cole in CommonDreams
“That problem is extremism based on a warped and abusive view of the religion. It is a problem here in the region. It is a problem in countries like Pakistan, it’s a problem in the Far East. We can see from Nigeria and Boko Haram it’s a problem in African countries and it’s a problem in our own society as we can see from Birmingham schools.” Telegraph
“… underneath the turmoil and revolution of the past years is one very clear and unambiguous struggle: between those with a modern view of the Middle East, one of pluralistic societies and open economies, where the attitudes and patterns of globalisation are embraced; and, on the other side, those who want to impose an ideology born out of a belief that there is one proper religion and one proper view of it, and that this view should, exclusively, determine the nature of society and the political economy…the reason that this ideology is dangerous is that its implementation is incompatible with the modern world – politically, socially, and economically. Why? Because the way the modern world works is through connectivity. Its essential nature is pluralist. It favours the open-minded. Modern economies work through creativity and connections. Democracy cannot function except as a way of thinking as well as voting. You put your view; you may lose; you try to win next time; or you win but you accept that you may lose next time.That is not the way that the Islamist ideology works. It is not about a competing view of how society or politics should be governed within a common space where you accept other views are equally valid. It is exclusivist in nature. The ultimate goal is not a society which someone else can change after winning an election. It is a society of a fixed polity, governed by religious doctrines that are not changeable but which are, of their essence, unchangeable.” Speech at Bloomberg, London, 23 April 2014
TONY BLAIR: I think if we’d—if we’d backed off and we’d left him in power, you just imagine, with what is happening in Syria now, if you’d left Saddam in charge of Iraq, you would have had carnage on an even worse scale in Syria and with no end in sight. So, you know, this was the most difficult decision I ever took and the most balanced decision. But I still—personally, I still believe we were better to remove him than leave him.
AMY GOODMAN: That was British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former prime minister. Arundhati Roy, your response?
ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, you know, I don’t know. Maybe they need to be put into a padded cell and given some real news to read, you know? I mean, how can you say this, after creating a situation in Iraq where no—I mean, every day people are being blown up? There are—you know, mosques are being attacked. Thousands are being killed. People have been made to hate each other. In Iraq, women were amongst the most liberated women in the world, and they have been driven back into having to wear burqas and be safe, because of the situation. And this man is saying, “Oh, we did such a wonderful thing. We saved these people.” Now, isn’t that like—isn’t it insane? I mean, I don’t know how to respond to something like that, because it’s like somebody looking at somebody being slaughtered and saying, “Oh, he must be enjoying it. We are really helping him,” you know? So, how do you argue rationally against these people?
Tony Blair does not tire of calling on Muslims to show leadership! More than once he has claimed that the acts of political violence in Britain involving Muslims has nothing to do with international conflicts, but because of their religion…but his statements are more often portray a twisted logic…
“Blair saw the [Quartet] role as a continuation of the principles he had espoused as prime minister. He saw the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an important part of the war on terror, and believed it provided a rallying call to extremists. Resolving it would take away the opportunity it gave extremists to recruit others to their cause.” Mixed reviews for Tony Blair after 100th trip as Middle East envoy
What, I’m afraid, is very dangerous and actually is wrong is the reaction to it (‘Innocence of Muslims’). “We need both the leadership within these countries and within Islam to stand up and say, ‘Look, there is a proper modern way of reconciling religious faith, democracy in society”. 17 September 2012, BBC Radio 4)
Blair asserts that Muslims found it easier to blame others than to look inward; that ‘given half a leadership’, Muslims would ‘face up to the extremist menace in their midst’ (18 November 2005, The Guardian)
Similarly, in his view Muslims found it easier to blame others than to look inward; that ‘given half a leadership’, Muslims would ‘face up to the extremist menace in their midst’ (18th November 2005, The Guardian)
See also: Blair’s authoritarian discourse
See also: Blair fails to impress Malaysians
See also: Tony Blair’s humbug (674)