According to Tony Blair, speaking in 2001, he argued that there is no such thing as an ‘Islamic’ or a ‘Muslim terrorist’. Does that mean that there is no such thing as a Nationalist or fascist terrorist? Of course not. Why? Because, to Blair’s mind, terrorism and religion simply cannot possibly go together. Did he think that because he had read the Koran every night (or so he once claimed)? Or was it because he had spent too much time with the Muslim Council of Britain, other Islamists and various Islamophiles and apologists? I don’t know. This is what he actually said:
‘What happened in America [9/11] was not the work of Islamic terrorists, it was not the work of Muslim terrorists. It was the work of terrorists, pure and simple.’
This is just damn odd. It is almost as if Blair believed (or pretended to believe) that terrorists don’t need a reason to commit acts of terrorism. Terrorists, being terrorists, just, well, do it.
No matter how shocking, say, the Omagh bombing was, it wouldn't have helped matters if Tony Blair (in 1998) had said:
Omagh was not the work of Nationalist terrorists, it was not the work of anti-British terrorists. It was the work of terrorists, pure and simple.
Of course, Tony Blair would never have said that. No one would have said that.
Yet many people, often the same people, do say that the terrorist bomb for reasons. Indeed, despite the fact that Blair said that 9/11 was a piece of terrorism qua pure terrorism, his Government had also said that it was a response to ‘Islamophobia’ and the litany of other crimes against Muslims throughout the world and at home. The Government and Blair had it both ways. That is, Blair said that 9/11 was not anything to do with Islam. It was just pure terrorism. And in the next breath his Government said that it was a response to ‘Islamophobia’ or whatever other piece of rubbish that was the excuse at the time.