on the same page

Something that Tony Blair and al Qaeda supporters have in common is that both see the hidden hand of Iran in the Lebanese conflict. From Jamestown, an excerpt from the Takfiri forum Tajdeed:

"It is clear that the missile strikes against Hezbollah came at the most opportune time for Iran, after the failure of nuclear talks with the European Union and prior to the second summit in Russia, which was to bring the issue of the Iranian nuclear program to the top of the agenda, and present a unified position to the UN Security Council. And the U.S. is aware of Iran's aims in these operations and that it is trying to shake the Western alliance with Russia and China which America has strived to build over recent months to oppose Iran with a unified front. However, Iran was able to destroy these efforts with malice, igniting the conflict between Lebanon and Israel…"

Now here’s the version of the same argument Blair came out with:

Mr Blair told MPs: "Hizbollah is supported by Iran and Syria, by the former in weapons, weapons very similar if not identical to those used against British troops in Basra, by the latter in many different ways and by both financially."

Mr Blair's spokesman said later that: "What he is simply saying is stating the obvious which is that the rockets that have been fired into Israel have been analysed as being from that source. We have compared that with what has been happening around Basra.

Mr Blair linked the Hizbollah attacks on Israel with the insurgency in Iraq and the wider problem of extremism in the Middle East. He told MPs: "At root, we need to recognise the fundamental nature of the struggle in the region, which has far-reaching consequences far beyond that region and even in countries like our own. All over the Middle East there are those who want to modernise their nations, who believe as we do in democracy and liberty and tolerance. But ranged against them are extremists who believe the opposite, who believe in fundamentalist states and are at war not against Israel's actions but against its existence. In virtually every country of the region, such a struggle is being played out."

This is really embarrassing. The first part of the above is the kind of conspiracy theory that gets forced on you at bus stops by men covered in dried sick. The second part is a fatuous just so story meant to fill the gaping holes in the first part of the argument (similar to what? Analysed by who? And notice that little prompt “stating the obvious”) Christ on a fucking bike, it comes to something when you have to go to a jihadi forum to hear a coherent argument for a position held by the British government.

Oh, yes and the boys in al Qaeda are cheering the IDF on too:

"because the annihilation of Hezbollah means opening the battlefield to the return of the Sunni jihad, especially in as much as al-Qaeda will forge a path into Lebanon through the Palestinian camps and Sunni northern Lebanon, which now makes for a fertile ground for their recruitment. This is, by every measure, a disastrous development for Israel."

Comments

[Alex]

How is an infra-red detonated IED similar to a fucking gurt rocket anyway? Except for "going bang and killing people"?

[Wolfie]

Good point Alex. The thing is, this is the correct conspiracy theory but the wrong protagonist. So who's the proxy again?