The Yemen Terror Plot

As more and more information is revealed, it is looking like this Yemen scare yesterday was some really serious stuff.  Initially it was perceived as a dry run, but now it is looking like there was some explosive devices on board these jets.

Therefore it is difficult to say that the attack "failed" in the traditional sense of the word - because when terrorists get explosives on to a plane, they have essentially succeeded in one sense.  They may not have succeeded in their ultimate motives, which was to blow up Jewish centres of worship, but they have succeeded to get explosives on jets, which is a real problem.

My intention in making this point is not to criticise intelligence, quite the opposite - they did a great job.  But it shows once again how important Anglo-American relations are.  The Chicago bound jet was stopped in London, plus an additional jet was stopped at East Midlands Airport in England.  Many flights from these extremist areas stop in some part of England to refuel and then move on to America.  If both British and American intelligence organisations are working together, then they can stop a great many of these attempts before they cause a problem.

Therefore, as voters prepare to enter the voting booth on Tuesday evening, they shouldn't discount the role that Anglo-American relations play in keeping both Britain and America safe.  They should therefore remember which party it is that has been putting Anglo-American relations on ice since they gained the Presidency in 2009.

The only way we can prevent a great deal of these attacks is by international collaboration.  While Obama et al may (rightly) be focusing to a large degree on keeping relations good with the government of Yemen, and the Pakistani authorities etc, he should also look closer to home, to the ally who he has been constantly rejecting since he became President.  His country's security depends on it.

International Relations and "hurtful" remarks

David Cameron is currently on the next stage of  his international tourm and has ruffled some feathers with his views on various issues.  I don't agree with everything Cameron has said (describing Gaza as a prison camp was a little bit.....incorrect for my tastes!) but I do appreciate a leader being honest with what he believes.  Brown never seemed to have an opinion on anything, so it is nice to hear actual opinions and policies from the Prime Minister.

Arguably his most controversial comments were when he stated that it was unacceptable for Pakistan to allow terrorist training camps to flourish within Pakistan, therefore promoting terrorism throughout the world.  Now, as far as I am concerned, these comments are either right or wrong.  Pakistan is either allowing terrorist training camps to flourish within its borders, and as a result should clamp down on it - or it is not allowing them to flourish, and therefore should refute Mr Cameron's remarks.  The statement is either a truthful one, and must therefore be accepted, or it is false and must be refuted.

Yet, this question is not the one being asked, or answered at all in the resulting discussion about the comments.  The discussion is less on whether or not the comments were right, but whether or not they were 'hurtful' or 'offensive'.  Take Pakistan's High Commissioner who said that people in Pakistan were "really hurt" by Cameron's comments and called for him to 'make amends'.

Now, whether or not the remarks are 'hurtful' are irrelevant - the question should be whether or not they are true.  Only on something small, like whether or not you enjoyed a meal, does one sacrifice truth for someone's feelings.  But on an issue as large as international terrorism, feelings are irrelevant, the question is only one of truth.  If Pakistan are indeed allowing terrorism to flourish, as appears to be the case, then Cameron is well within his rights and responsibilities to say so in strong terms to the Pakistani goevernment.  It would be irresponsible not to.

The High Commissioner should be saying either "Yes we need to do more" or "No, Mr Cameron's comments are innacurate, we are doing enough etec."  But to say they are hurtful really misses the point, but it touches on a side of politics that has tainted a lot of political debate.  It is really a left-wing influence that has tainted the mainstream of thought and discussion.

The influence is one of an essentially relativistic brand.  For many on the left, a thing does not have an intrinsic, objective moral value - it is entirely subjective.  Therefore, many issues come down to either intentions or feelings, not right or wrong.  So often on political issues, you hear about 'compassion' 'hurtfulness', 'understanding' etc instead of getting things done, and whether measure are right or wrong, working or failing, true or false.  This is because it is the land of the subjective intention that the left work in.

From this understanding of truth, Cameron hurt people's feelings - therefore he shouldn't have said what he said.  However, for those of us in America and Britain who want to stop terrorist attacks, the real question is "Was David Cameron right?" - the answer is not yet conclusive, but it is that question that is the judge of the rightness of his comments, not whether or not it offended or 'hurt' people.

As a result, if David Cameron does believe that Pakistan is not doing enough in its responsibilities, then it is his duty to say so in the strongest terms - and he should be commended, not criticised, for doing so.