As I’ve often remarked, the level of discourse in Britain – political and otherwise – is abysmal, but I was still shocked to learn that in the view of the Prime Minister, I can accurately be described as a terrorist sympathiser because I’m not persuaded that it’s a good idea for the UK to bomb Syria.
With the greatest of respect to all my friends in the USA, this is the kind of language I’d expect to hear from certain American politicians, not from British ones, while it’s little comfort to learn that roughly 50% of Britons are likely to agree with me on the question concerning Syria, judging from a poll conducted by the BBC’s Mark Easton that I saw on the news just an hour or so ago.
My views on this matter have little if anything to do with my conscience, because as I remarked in a previous post, I think that deciding whether or not bombing Syria is in the interests of the greater good is a matter of coldly weighing up the benefits and disadvantages of such a course of action, based on our intimate knowledge of all that has gone before.
For what it’s worth, I don’t regard those who differ with me on this matter as callous warmongers or anything of the kind, so I won’t be stooping to using disparaging invective like this against doubtless well-intended others who have arrived at a different conclusion to me. For all I know, they may turn out to be right, but as none of us can see into the future, only the passing of Time can demonstrate this.
“If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: the harm is to persist in one’s own self-deception and ignorance.”