Whether the stabbing of Stephen Timms was a Good Thing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8110447/Website-used-by-woman-who-stabbed-MP-encourages-further-attacks.html

I wonder if Stephen Timms would vote to invade Iraq again if he could turn back time. Not very clever of him as his constituents are mostly Muslims. Not the brightest bulb in the box then, but then that is the typical profile of lobby fodder in the LibLabCon. Why are the stupid who don't even know how to look after themselves in charge of the ship of state? Why does the government always insist on stupidity and spinelessness as qualifications to be an MP?

Let me clarify my position very very carefully.

1. I am delighted that lobby fodder Stephen Timms got his come-uppance.

2. If he had died it would have made a better story because it would have put the fear of God into these lobby fodder MPs.

3. Their fear of further attacks on their numbers would bounce them into recanting and expressing remorse and regret to avoid a similar fate.

4. Loss of support for the war amongst more than half of the House would have a significant impact on the conduct of the war.

5. It would mean the withdrawal of British troops *sooner* rather than later, and the reduction in the numbers of lives lost on both sides.  (This would of course be a Good Thing for both Muslims and non-Muslims, Britain and Afghanistan.)

6. Do my views make me complicit in the stabbing of Stephen Timms? No.

7. Was the stabbing of Stephen Timms a Good thing? Yes, because it demonstrates that violent acts (such as voting for a dishonorable and unwinnable war just because your leader said so) begets violence.  There is a philosophical argument that the morality of an act (eg stabbing a politician) can only be judged by the intended consequences of that act (eg the prevention of further lives being lost unnecessarily on both sides in the prosecution of a dishonorable and unwinnable war, sooner rather than later). 

8. Would his death have been a better thing? Of course, because it would result in the war ending sooner rather than later because of the haemorrhaging of support for the war amongst our politicians, if not an actual stampede to denounce it, especially if there were further attacks on other MPs.

9.  Would I be pleased if another MP were attacked?  No, because there is no need for anyone else to be hurt if they are already earnestly discussing the best way of dealing with the situation.   But are they though? 



I hope this is all reasonably clear.