Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Syria

We here in the UK have a government that nobody actually voted for (such is the nature of this coalition), therefore how does it have the right to interfere in the goings on of another country? I accept its right to govern the UK, because it has gone through due process, but surely it is not legitimate for it to interfere in the affairs of somewhere else, unless that other place was actually aggressively hostile towards us. In particular, what gives them the right arm rebels in Syria? Whilst the regime there is far from perfect, what gives us the right to try to escalate a conflict that will undoubtedly cause even more suffering to countless innocent people, and radicalise countless more. We went ape over America's Noraid funding the IRA. But if we use our own twisted logic on ourselves, then the IRA had a right to be armed. Why not allow the English Defence League to be armed? Why not allow every radicalised Islamist cleric in the country to set up his own militia?

The language of peace is missing from the European strategy, because the language of Christianity has been lost We have some serious praying to do. We have some serious Christian witness to make.

1 comment:

Robert said...

Sometimes I think it is a prerequisite of politics that one embrace hypocrisy as the default mode of thinking.

I have to wonder about England arming rebels. Didn't they learn from their experience with the American colonies? If we had not been armed, if we had not been aided by France, who knows, maybe we'd today be the United States of England in America!

Of course, we in the USA wouldn't want it any way other than how it happened, and we're always wanting to share the experience of freedom with other rebels.

One, ought however, to be very choosy about the "tyrants" one chooses to help overthrow, and the rebels one chooses to support.