View Full Version : Sign the petition to prosecute blair for war crimes
sweetheart
01-May-07, 06:56
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WarCriminalBlair/
The war criminals and their heinous genocide of iraqi civilians has gone too far.
It is a citizen's obligation to reign in the criminals and to demand justice be done.
Have you got a petition to sign to bring Al qaeda terrorists to trial? :roll:
What a stupid petition, as if you could ever get anything like that done. There are dozens of leaders of other countries that need to be charged for far worse war crimes.
Now if it were a petition to recall our troops then I would sign that.
What a stupid petition, as if you could ever get anything like that done. There are dozens of leaders of other countries that need to be charged for far worse war crimes.
Yes, like this one http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
sweetheart
01-May-07, 13:25
So other countries did it, and blair was just a leaf in the wind; the primary
global salesman of what has become the iraq genocide, the main apologist
who explained and put a face on what bush was simply to crude to give
any reason for... blair.
Bush is another thread/cheney, and the attack they planned with their
saudi buddies on 9/11 to give themselves unlimited power and license. This
crime needs be persecuted in due consequence.
Each country has to clean its own house, agreed, but this being the country
where blair has done the dirty, where we are all party to a genocide,
then here is where he needs go down.
Al queda exists because of american/british crimes in the middle east, if
they were figthing that, they would stop with the crimes, and people who
wanted it stopped, would demand an end to the crimes. That's why this
is such a stupid petition, because it would involve people snapping out of
their collective brainwash that a genocide and occupation of iraq is still ok
and lets send in the royals... to something more honourable.
j4bberw0ck
01-May-07, 17:51
Gee whiz..... sometimes I despair. Sweetheart, do you really and truly believe Al Qaeda exists because of "British and American crimes in the Middle East?" They exist because they're committed to the overthrow of the West and Western values, and they'd laugh at your ignorance while they shot you.
Who's doing the the killing out there? Answer - Islamic insurgents. Who's breaking the Iraqi infrastructure every time someone makes a bit of it work? Islamic insurgents.
All that Spartist claptrap about "war criminals" is infantile and pointless. The criminals here are the insurgents, funded by Iran / Syria and some Saudi elements, who deliberately target civilians in a desperate attempt to prevent democracy being established in Iraq - democracy is regarded by them as heretical and anti-Islamic.
I blame Michael Moore for this thread!:D
Gee whiz..... sometimes I despair. Sweetheart, do you really and truly believe Al Qaeda exists because of "British and American crimes in the Middle East?" They exist because they're committed to the overthrow of the West and Western values, and they'd laugh at your ignorance while they shot you.
Gee whiz j4bberw0ck do you ever stop to think about the claptrap you keep sprouting, Al Qaeda didn't invade Britain, Britain invaded Iraq, your argument just fell flat.
Oh my what is the world coming to????
I cannot understand why anyone wants to punish Mr Blair. All he did was his best and that is all any of us can do. He commited no crimes like the crimes of al quida or what ever they are called. I call for this thread to be removed by the adminastrator please.
I blame Michael Moore for this thread!:D
A simple case of right and wrong Rocco.
How do we bring children up to believe it's wrong to break the law, wrong to take what you want by force, when our leaders who should be setting an example do just that.
America and Britain invaded Iraq so we would have a permanent military force in the heart of the Middle East to control the worlds oil supply, oil the western world is addicted to. There is no difference between that and a drug addict mugging a defenceless old lady, if one is wrong then so is the other.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WarCriminalBlair/
The war criminals and their heinous genocide of iraqi civilians has gone too far.
It is a citizen's obligation to reign in the criminals and to demand justice be done.
Can I suggest that you get a life?
Do you really know what genocide is? Are you suggesting that the UK is commited to a policy of genocide?
I dispair of some people - I really, really do.
You want to campaign against genocide then shout about Dafur, or cast your mind back several years to Saddams treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
Gee whiz j4bberw0ck do you ever stop to think about the claptrap you keep sprouting, Al Qaeda didn't invade Britain, Britain invaded Iraq, your argument just fell flat.
Here we go again…….whilst there can be no argument that the West (well some of the West), invaded Iraq, radical Islam and Al Qaeda were well established prior to this. For anyone who is not offay with the aims and goals of radical Islam then I recommend that they read Jason Burke’s excellent book Al Qaeda The True Story of Radical Islam.
If the USA/UK never invaded Iraq/Afghanistan the West would still be under attack from radical Islam.
There were 172 militants arrested in Saudi last week – and a significant cache of arms, explosives and money seized – the targets were Saudi military, commercial and industrial facilities.
j4bberw0ck
01-May-07, 19:25
Gee whiz j4bberw0ck do you ever stop to think about the claptrap you keep sprouting, Al Qaeda didn't invade Britain, Britain invaded Iraq, your argument just fell flat.
Ah. So let me see; Al Qaeda didn't exist before the invasion? Also, the original poster said that Al Qaeda came out of crimes committed by Britain and America in the Middle East. No, they didn't; they came from Saudi Wahhabis with a very strange take on religion. Also, you'll notice I didn't mention the invasion of Iraq, or Al Qaeda's attack** on US territory in September 2001.
No, I don't think you can say my argument fell flat because of the ignorance of the original poster.
** Sorry, I was forgetting. That was the CIA or George Bush or some neo-con group that flew the aircraft and planted bombs in the basement on the WTC. The poor Islamists on board were just victims of British and American crimes.
A simple case of right and wrong Rocco.
How do we bring children up to believe it's wrong to break the law, wrong to take what you want by force, when our leaders who should be setting an example do just that.
America and Britain invaded Iraq so we would have a permanent military force in the heart of the Middle East to control the worlds oil supply, oil the western world is addicted to. There is no difference between that and a drug addict mugging a defenceless old lady, if one is wrong then so is the other.
Radical Islam and Al Qaeda would exist ven if there was no oil Fred - although I do admit it clouds the issue significantly.
Fraser Macleod
01-May-07, 19:27
The petition is pointless simply for the fact that even if Blair were to go to trial for War Crimes he would be found innocent by any judge, not becuase what he did was the right thing to do; unfortunatly he suffers the Illusion that what he the correct course of action to be undeniably right; but because he believes he can justfy his actions and because he pales in comparision to any dictator. After all just look at Pol Pot who had half of cambodia taken out to the killing feilds and ordered his militia to tie plastic bags around their head because it was a cheaper method of killing that bullets. Or what about Robert Mugabe? would your time not be better spent talking out against him before everyone in Zimbawe starves?
Yes Bush and Blair (or Blair and Bush if you prefer) have done wrong, and yes Guantanamo Bay is still in operation and we do still have brave troops serving in Iraq. But please bear in mind our servicemen and women are not told to target cilvilians and they are not told to strap explosives to themselves. I would prefer Britains troops to be in britain with their families, but surely its worth the risk if it stops Innocent Iraqis, whose lives are worth just as much as mine or as any soldiers, from being killed because they are sunni muslims instead of shia by insurgents.
Ciao Fraser
The petition is pointless simply for the fact that even if Blair were to go to trial for War Crimes he would be found innocent by any judge, not becuase what he did was the right thing to do; unfortunatly he suffers the Illusion that what he the correct course of action to be undeniably right; but because he believes he can justfy his actions and because he pales in comparision to any dictator. After all just look at Pol Pot who had half of cambodia taken out to the killing feilds and ordered his militia to tie plastic bags around their head because it was a cheaper method of killing that bullets. Or what about Robert Mugabe? would your time not be better spent talking out against him before everyone in Zimbawe starves?
Yes Bush and Blair (or Blair and Bush if you prefer) have done wrong, and yes Guantanamo Bay is still in operation and we do still have brave troops serving in Iraq. But please bear in mind our servicemen and women are not told to target cilvilians and they are not told to strap explosives to themselves. I would prefer Britains troops to be in britain with their families, but surely its worth the risk if it stops Innocent Iraqis, whose lives are worth just as much as mine or as any soldiers, from being killed because they are sunni muslims instead of shia by insurgents.
Ciao Fraser
A wee bit confused there at the end Fraser. The insurgents are generally Sunni - when you hear of any suicide bombs etc, then they are Sunni. Any attacks that involve militias, and gunfire are usually Shia - normally in retaliation against suicide bombs in marketplaces etc. The Shia have totally different objectives than the Sunni insurgents.
I am not going to be drawn into a debate on the war, but what I will say is that Is all too easy for us to sit here and say what Is right and wrong on the reasons for invading and that Tony Blair is a criminal for taking us too war, but the fact is he had a massive decision to make, and was backed by most top politicians at the time, who we rely on to make those types of decisions. I know I wouldn't like to try and explain to one of our soldiers that they are over In Iraq fighting a war for criminals that is based on a pack of lies!
Maybe you know some other facts that I dont about why we invaded and that is why you beleive so strongly in your views but like most I dont know all the facts so will not be signing any petition that calls Tony Blair a criminal!
I am dumbstruck by the number of people who think that any petition raised will have an effect.
Whilst not arguing about the principles of those concerned do they not look further than the ends of their noses?
Impeachment of Mr Blair has been seriously considered and not proceeded with as under the rules of our democracy it was blatantly obvious that such an act would not command the support required to be able to implement it.
Whether or not we agree with the actions our politicians take, whether we feel them to be misguided or even downright stupid there are ways and means to show our displeasure and roads that can be followed albeit they often meander off in diverse directions as this thread seems to have done!
Did some one mention elections later this week?
We have a first past the post system so your vote does count if you don't like what you see then go to the poling booth and register your displeasure and at the same time reflect on the fact that you have that right which is denied to so many millions in this world.
No offence intended to any one but just felt I had to interject on this.
umm i was under the impression genocide was what hitler did to the jews?
as far as im aware the US and UK are not rounding the iraquis up, putting them in consentration camps, and summilarly executing everyone they find?
genocide, i thought was the complete anihalation of a race, not the casulties of war, which by the way was instigated by al queda but has indeed gotten way outta hand.
i agree bush is a complete idiot, and if he could be charged with criminal stupidity he would be on death row right now!
blair has stradled that fence so long and hard he must have one heck of a splinter up his......
unfortulantley, they will never be able to treaty a peace with the extremists.. all they care about is their ideals.. and do not care about the way they do it.
we are all western devils and deserve to die in their eyes.
they do not teach tolerance or peace even though mohamad did.
they are so stuck on their power trip for teh glory of allah.. they can not see that they are wrong in their extreme views.. the same as some in the western world can not see how much hatred and prejudice color their judgment.
I am not going to be drawn into a debate on the war, but what I will say is that Is all too easy for us to sit here and say what Is right and wrong on the reasons for invading and that Tony Blair is a criminal for taking us too war, but the fact is he had a massive decision to make, and was backed by most top politicians at the time, who we rely on to make those types of decisions. I know I wouldn't like to try and explain to one of our soldiers that they are over In Iraq fighting a war for criminals that is based on a pack of lies!
The only reason he was backed by Parliament was because he lied to them, he told them Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be used against us at 45 minutes notice when he knew that wasn't true.
Our soldiers are fighting a war for criminals that is based on a pack of lies.
You want to campaign against genocide then shout about Dafur, or cast your mind back several years to Saddams treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
Good one quirbal I am with you 100%
Here we go again…….whilst there can be no argument that the West (well some of the West), invaded Iraq, radical Islam and Al Qaeda were well established prior to this. For anyone who is not offay with the aims and goals of radical Islam then I recommend that they read Jason Burke’s excellent book Al Qaeda The True Story of Radical Islam.
Yes Al Qaeda would exist because America created them, armed them, trained them and financed them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, then when they got back from doing the CIAs dirty work in the Balkans they found a load of American military bases in Saudi Arabia and weren't too happy about it.
If the USA/UK never invaded Iraq/Afghanistan the West would still be under attack from radical Islam.
There were 172 militants arrested in Saudi last week – and a significant cache of arms, explosives and money seized – the targets were Saudi military, commercial and industrial facilities.
Who are these "radical Islam" you're talking about? Before we invaded Iraq they were a few small independent terrorist groups scattered around the Middle East, we united them in a common cause, gave them a common identity, swelled their numbers a thousandfold and more, we created Al Qaeda.
** Sorry, I was forgetting. That was the CIA or George Bush or some neo-con group that flew the aircraft and planted bombs in the basement on the WTC. The poor Islamists on board were just victims of British and American crimes.
Let's have an independent inquiry and find out.
Can I suggest that you get a life?
Do you really know what genocide is? Are you suggesting that the UK is commited to a policy of genocide?
I dispair of some people - I really, really do.
You want to campaign against genocide then shout about Dafur, or cast your mind back several years to Saddams treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
I wonder how that would go down in court if the drug addict who mugged the old lady was caught and stood trial. "Call that grievous bodily harm? What about Jack the Ripper? All I did was break a few bones.
Your argument is illogical, there are a lot of wrongs in the world none of which make invading Iraq right, a crime is a crime and this is one we can do something about.
Oh my what is the world coming to????
I cannot understand why anyone wants to punish Mr Blair. All he did was his best and that is all any of us can do. He commited no crimes like the crimes of al quida or what ever they are called. I call for this thread to be removed by the adminastrator please.
Yes we did commit a crime, we invaded another country which was no threat to us, that is illegal under international law. We did to Iraq what Hitler did to Poland and everyone seemed to think that was a crime.
It is a citizen's obligation to reign in the criminals and to demand justice be done.I don't think we need any politically biased one sided lectures either from you or any other "activists" on what our obligations are or what demands we should or should not make concerning justice.
Anybody else suspect that these kinds of threads are more concerned with Political Posturing than anything resembling even a vague connection with "Justice"?
umm i was under the impression genocide was what hitler did to the jews?
as far as im aware the US and UK are not rounding the iraquis up, putting them in consentration camps, and summilarly executing everyone they find?
Just because it doesn't get onto the Blair Bush Corporation News doesn't mean it's not happening. Estimates are around a million dead and over two million displaced since we invaded.
I've been reading a blog written by an Iraqi girl since the invasion, here (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#863393721364 5733275#8633937213645733275) is her latest entry.
I wonder how that would go down in court if the drug addict who mugged the old lady was caught and stood trial. "Call that grievous bodily harm? What about Jack the Ripper? All I did was break a few bones.
Your argument is illogical, there are a lot of wrongs in the world none of which make invading Iraq right, a crime is a crime and this is one we can do something about.
Did you read my post or did you misunderstand it?
I take it you know what genocide is? Are you seriously suggesting that the UK government has a policy of genocide?
Are you suggesting that UK troops are actively engaging in genocide? Are you seriously? To suggest that Blair is guilty of genocide is to suggest that UK soldiers are actively carrying out this policy. Shame on you that you can even suggest that.
I am not suggesting that Iraq is right or wrong, what I object to is UK forces serving in Iraq not getting the support they deserve from idiots who twist facts to fit their own agenda.
UK forces are not commiting genocide in Iraq, they are not responsible for the secterian hatred that is happening - no more so than they were responsible for what happened in Ulster. That is where most of the deaths are coming from - Iraqis killing Iraqis.
UK or for that matter US and any other country who contributes troops to the UN force in Iraq are NOT carrying out genocide - if you believe they are then get yourself a dictionary.
Yes we did commit a crime, we invaded another country which was no threat to us, that is illegal under international law. We did to Iraq what Hitler did to Poland and everyone seemed to think that was a crime.
Oh come on Fred, yes we might of made a mess in Iraq, but do you really know what hitler, and for that case Stalin did to Poland and its population?
stivagorm
01-May-07, 21:58
Bring back Maggie Thatcher !!!!
Just because it doesn't get onto the Blair Bush Corporation News doesn't mean it's not happening. Estimates are around a million dead and over two million displaced since we invaded.
I've been reading a blog written by an Iraqi girl since the invasion, here (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#863393721364 5733275#8633937213645733275) is her latest entry.
How many of them were killed by the Insurgents? How many are moving because of the secterian violence?
Did you read my post or did you misunderstand it?
I take it you know what genocide is? Are you seriously suggesting that the UK government has a policy of genocide?
I'm suggesting that the Shia malitia are being armed and trained by somebody and are backed by American and British soldiers.
Are you suggesting that UK troops are actively engaging in genocide? Are you seriously? To suggest that Blair is guilty of genocide is to suggest that UK soldiers are actively carrying out this policy. Shame on you that you can even suggest that.
Suggest that Iraq would be a lot easier for us to control if the Sunni population weren't there any more? Seems obvious to me.
I am not suggesting that Iraq is right or wrong, what I object to is UK forces serving in Iraq not getting the support they deserve from idiots who twist facts to fit their own agenda.
UK forces are not commiting genocide in Iraq, they are not responsible for the secterian hatred that is happening - no more so than they were responsible for what happened in Ulster. That is where most of the deaths are coming from - Iraqis killing Iraqis.
What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars.
UK or for that matter US and any other country who contributes troops to the UN force in Iraq are NOT carrying out genocide - if you believe they are then get yourself a dictionary.
The Sunni population of Iraq are being eradicated and Bush and Blair's decision to invade was the cause.
Oh come on Fred, yes we might of made a mess in Iraq, but do you really know what hitler, and for that case Stalin did to Poland and its population?
Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?
How many of them were killed by the Insurgents? How many are moving because of the secterian violence?
There were no insurgents, no sectarian violence before we invaded, we caused it.
Yes we did commit a crime, we invaded another country which was no threat to us, that is illegal under international law. We did to Iraq what Hitler did to Poland and everyone seemed to think that was a crime.
Okay then maybe we should just let them do what ever they want but when you are on a plane or a bus or a train and they do to that train etc just what america and uk are trying so hard to stop come back and say this again. Opps u wont be able to? Ud be gone.
I don't think we need any politically biased one sided lectures either from you or any other "activists" on what our obligations are or what demands we should or should not make concerning justice.
Anybody else suspect that these kinds of threads are more concerned with Political Posturing than anything resembling even a vague connection with "Justice"?
I seem to remember someone asking people to sign a petition for inquests into killed servicemen and we left it alone. I remember someone asking people to sign a petition to bring back military hospitals and we left it alone.
Sweetheart asks people to sign a petition to bring a war criminal to justice and the clique are in there arguing against.
I'm suggesting that the Shia malitia are being armed and trained by somebody and are backed by American and British soldiers.
And your proof is? Are you really sure about that? What about this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6203727.stm ? Yes there are problems, but of least the US and UK are working to solve the corruption and problems in their approaches.
Suggest that Iraq would be a lot easier for us to control if the Sunni population weren't there any more? Seems obvious to me.
Why?
What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars.
Psssibly 5th October 1968 was the start of the troubles - UK troops were dispatched on 14th August 1969
The Sunni population of Iraq are being eradicated and Bush and Blair's decision to invade was the cause.
Right, I see - so as long as the Sunnis are ok you can kill as many Kurds and Shias as you like? That seems to be case following your logic and is blatently not true.
Fred, answer me this, there are broadly three areas in Iraq - Sunni, Shia and Kurd. How are they fairing? The Kurds are trying to make the best of it and prospering. The other groups are too busy fighting each other and the US/UK troops. Any wonder they are suffering - anybody who tries to improve the infrastructure is either killed or threatened by the local malitia.
Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?
And the rest - if you are suggesting that is all that was carried out by the Nazis and the Reds then read on mate!
There were no insurgents, no sectarian violence before we invaded, we caused it.
How much do you know about the Shia/Sunni split and its history? Are you blaming the US for the last 13 hundred years of conflict?
What is the Marsh Arabs take on this statement? Are they not Shia and was there not a genocidal purge against them by the Sunnis during the 1990s?
I seem to remember someone asking people to sign a petition for inquests into killed servicemen and we left it alone. I remember someone asking people to sign a petition to bring back military hospitals and we left it alone.
Sweetheart asks people to sign a petition to bring a war criminal to justice and the clique are in there arguing against.
So far, out of 38 39 40 41 42 replies, 13 14 15 16 are attributable to fred. That gives the "fredclique" over a third of the posts in here...
We can always remove all the replies and lock the thread (as was the inquest thread) to prevent further hijacking of sweethearts topic?
Okay then maybe we should just let them do what ever they want but when you are on a plane or a bus or a train and they do to that train etc just what america and uk are trying so hard to stop come back and say this again. Opps u wont be able to? Ud be gone.
Al Qaeda had no connection to Iraq.
Are you suggesting that because there are a few Muslims who are terrorists we are justified in invading any Muslim country we want to?
There are white terrorists too you know.
So far out of 38 replies 13 are attributable to fred. That gives the "fredclique" over a third of the posts in here...
We can always remove all the replies and lock the thread (as was the inquest thread) to prevent further hijacking of sweethearts topic?
Ask sweetheart.
If we didn't let evil criminals like Blair get away with it we wouldn't be needing the inquests or the hospitals.
How much do you know about the Shia/Sunni split and its history? Are you blaming the US for the last 13 hundred years of conflict?
What is the Marsh Arabs take on this statement? Are they not Shia and was there not a genocidal purge against them by the Sunnis during the 1990s?
In Iraq pre invasion there was no sectarian violence, Sunni and Shia lived side by side, they inter married freely, nobody even asked if you were Sunni or Shia.
And the rest - if you are suggesting that is all that was carried out by the Nazis and the Reds then read on mate!
I have read on, did you know that in the months after VE day 3 million Germans were killed, one million servicemen and two million civilians?
I seem to remember someone asking people to sign a petition for inquests into killed servicemen and we left it alone. I remember someone asking people to sign a petition to bring back military hospitals and we left it alone.
Sweetheart asks people to sign a petition to bring a war criminal to justice and the clique are in there arguing against.
Right, so you cannot see the problem Fred?
By suggesting that Blair is guilty of genocide, you are suggesting that UK forces are guilty of carrying out genocide.
Friends, colleagues, neighbours and relatives of people in Caithness are serving in Iraq, and you are thereby suggesting that people who live and work in our community are carrying out genocidal policies.
Still have a problem seeing why people object to the petition?
wavy davy
01-May-07, 23:53
My tuppenceworth.
Blair colluded with Bush to invade Iraq on grounds that they both knew were false. The former head of the CIA (forgotten his name) came out recently and said that planning the invasion started right after 9/11. 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to finish what his Dad had started, regardless of the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with said event.
The bloodshed in Iraq would never have happened if not for the invasion. Granted, Saddam did his share of bloodletting but never managed anything approaching the current level and the majority of people led pretty happy existences. I visited Iraq in 1999 (admittedly briefly) and couldn't get over how friendly and happy the people were.
Yes, the insurgents are doing most of the killing, but this would never have happened if not for the totally forseeable vacuum created by the invasion and the subsequent disbandment of the army and police force. Oh, and you don't have to be a psychology major to figure that the Sunnis might just be a touch peeved when they were dislodged from power.
Bush and Blair twitter on about Iraq now being a democracy, as if that justifies the debacle. I don't think that many Iraqis would support that particular view. Democracy doesn't have a great record of export sales success.
I've read Burke's (excellent) book but the fact remains that US/UK middle east policies, particularly that relating to Iraq, has galvanised radical Islam and advanced its development by years if not decades. You've only got to travel in the Middle East these days to feel by people's attitudes how badly Britain's reputation has deteriorated.
As an ex soldier I'm tremendously proud of our forces but for the life of me can't fathom what good they are doing there, other than to bolster Blair's denial.
Should a person whose lies and desire for self advancement have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people be prosecuted. Not a daft question but it won't happen.
connieb19
01-May-07, 23:53
So far, out of 38 39 40 41 42 replies, 13 14 15 16 are attributable to fred. That gives the "fredclique" over a third of the posts in here...
We can always remove all the replies and lock the thread (as was the inquest thread) to prevent further hijacking of sweethearts topic?if there is no clique then who is this "we" you are speaking about who will lock or remove threads?
:confused
Fred, answer me this, there are broadly three areas in Iraq - Sunni, Shia and Kurd. How are they fairing? The Kurds are trying to make the best of it and prospering. The other groups are too busy fighting each other and the US/UK troops. Any wonder they are suffering - anybody who tries to improve the infrastructure is either killed or threatened by the local malitia.
And so long as the Shia and Sunni are fighting we have a good excuse for keeping a huge military presence in the Middle East which was the purpose of the exercise in the first place.
There are people in Washington ... who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they're looking for 10, 20, 50 years in the future ... the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region, and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that 10 years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq. -- former President Jimmy Carter, Feb. 3, 2006
@connieb19
If sweetheart wishes their thread to be cleaned of all the posts after their OP and the thread locked to keep it to the point then I'm sure "we" as the Mods would oblige. That is the "we" I meant. Not the Royal "we", or the imaginary Clique "we" or any other "we" you might wish to introduce.....
I have read on, did you know that in the months after VE day 3 million Germans were killed, one million servicemen and two million civilians?
Oh yes, East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia...... would you like me to go on mate?
15 million ethnic germans repatriated to what was left of Germany?
Hundreds of thousands of multiple rapes of fefmales from seven to eighty.
Wilhelm Gustloff? Ever heard of that Fred? Greatest maritime disaster ever.
In the words of a German survivor 'It was our holocaust, but nobody cares'.
Yes Fred, whilst the western allies might have a something to answer for the Red Army liberating Eastern Europe were as bad as the Nazis.
Jeemag_USA
02-May-07, 00:11
Here we go again…….whilst there can be no argument that the West (well some of the West), invaded Iraq, radical Islam and Al Qaeda were well established prior to this. For anyone who is not offay with the aims and goals of radical Islam then I recommend that they read Jason Burke’s excellent book Al Qaeda The True Story of Radical Islam.
If the USA/UK never invaded Iraq/Afghanistan the West would still be under attack from radical Islam.
There were 172 militants arrested in Saudi last week – and a significant cache of arms, explosives and money seized – the targets were Saudi military, commercial and industrial facilities.
The west is still and has been under attack by radical islam since USA/UK invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been attacks in the UK, Europe and Australasia or wherever its called now. Al Qaeda has targeted new countries to its east and in Europe to set up bases and plan, just because their attacks are further apart than the ones of armies of democratic governments does not mean that UK/USA has halted them, in fact they have made them more likely in the future and encouraged mor young poeple to join up with islamic extremist groups. That argument carries no weight I am afraid.
Insurgents in Iraq and remaining Taliban who are holding out in Afghanistan and Pakistan are continuing to attack western targets in those countries as well as the people of those countries, and these attacks are steadily increasing since the invasion of those countries. No progress is being made anywhere. Iraq has a flimsy cooked up democratic government that can be overthrown by in fighting or sectarian domination, and as soon as UK/USA pull out that is exactly what will happen, if they stay the same amount of people will die. UK/USA forced themselves into a catch 22 no win situation by thinking they don't need to listen to the UN or anyone else.
For some unknown reason some poeple fail to grasp that both operations are a complete and utter failure and have tooken the threat of terrorism in this world to all new heights, and I think that can be called "denial".
And this petition is also nonsense, getting back to the subject at hand! How about a petition to set up a global operation to remove peoples heads from their backsides and think for themselves instead of following crazy cooked up battle plans that in the minds of select politicians are financially beneficial to themselves and their countries business interests. If you think its a cool idea to sign this petition, and you voted for Blair in the last election, then you too need to go on trial. So think about the old saying "People in glass houses" ;)
Right, so you cannot see the problem Fred?
By suggesting that Blair is guilty of genocide, you are suggesting that UK forces are guilty of carrying out genocide.
Friends, colleagues, neighbours and relatives of people in Caithness are serving in Iraq, and you are thereby suggesting that people who live and work in our community are carrying out genocidal policies.
Still have a problem seeing why people object to the petition?
The post I read only asked for people to sign a petition regarding Blair, nobody else, you are the one accusing the friends, colleagues, neighbours and relatives not Sweetheart.
Jeemag_USA
02-May-07, 00:18
In Iraq pre invasion there was no sectarian violence, Sunni and Shia lived side by side, they inter married freely, nobody even asked if you were Sunni or Shia.
And now they are arguing about the 12 foot walls they are building around Sunni areas to keep them apart from Shiites. SO how are we helping Iraq progress, are we turning them into Belfast or Berlin?
How come they suddenly need to build walls around township areas?
The post I read only asked for people to sign a petition regarding Blair, nobody else, you are the one accusing the friends, colleagues, neighbours and relatives not Sweetheart.
Fred, how can Blair be responsible for genocide? Surely someone is carrying out the act of genocide? If not UK forces then who?
wavy davy
02-May-07, 00:19
Quirbal said
Yes Fred, whilst the western allies might have a something to answer for the Red Army liberating Eastern Europe were as bad as the Nazis.
Aye, but isn't it roughly the same logic as Iraq. If the Germans/Americans/Brits hadn't started the killing, the subsequent bloodshed wouldn't have happened.
Fred, how can Blair be responsible for genocide? Surely someone is carrying out the act of genocide? If not UK forces then who?
I thought those troops that were accused of torture at abu graibh were tried and found guilty of war crimes? I can't see that happening to members of Al quaeda.:mad: I can't see that happening to the Iranian General who now wears a bravery medal and who held a gun to our illegally kidnapped troops.
The west is still and has been under attack by radical islam since USA/UK invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been attacks in the UK, Europe and Australasia or wherever its called now. Al Qaeda has targeted new countries to its east and in Europe to set up bases and plan, just because their attacks are further apart than the ones of armies of democratic governments does not mean that UK/USA has halted them, in fact they have made them more likely in the future and encouraged mor young poeple to join up with islamic extremist groups. That argument carries no weight I am afraid.
The figures are due to be published this week, they will show a 30% increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0428TerrorReport0428.html
North Rhins
02-May-07, 00:29
We’ve just had a couple of weeks of good humoured banter, a bit of news of what’s happening in Caithness and Scotland as a whole, we’ve even managed to have a laugh now and again. Then what happens, someone, probably well intentioned, posts a thread which involves the ‘I’ word, yep that’s right, Iraq. Suddenly, from wherever he has been hibernating comes dear old Fred. The oracle, the fountain of all knowledge, the righter of all wrongs. Once again we are subjected to the same vitriolic detritus which we had been so blessedly spared of late.
Never mind they were a pleasant couple of weeks while they lasted. :~(
Jeemag_USA
02-May-07, 00:29
I thought those troops that were accused of torture at abu graibh were tried and found guilty of war crimes? I can't see that happening to members of Al quaeda.:mad: I can't see that happening to the Iranian General who now wears a bravery medal and who held a gun to our illegally kidnapped troops.
How can you not see it happening to Al Qaeda? It is happening to Al Qaeda over a long period of time, they have prosecuted and imprisoned many, some of whom they have had to release because they were wrong, thats what Guantanamo Bay is for? They just caught another top Al Qaeda guy in the last couple of weeks, what do you think they are doing with them, giving them some money and sending them to the Bahamas?
Jeemag_USA
02-May-07, 00:33
We’ve just had a couple of weeks of good humoured banter, a bit of news of what’s happening in Caithness and Scotland as a whole, we’ve even managed to have a laugh now and again. Then what happens, someone, probably well intentioned, posts a thread which involves the ‘I’ word, yep that’s right, Iraq. Suddenly, from wherever he has been hibernating comes dear old Fred. The oracle, the fountain of all knowledge, the righter of all wrongs. Once again we are subjected to the same vitriolic detritus which we had been so blessedly spared of late.
Never mind they were a pleasant couple of weeks while they lasted. :~(
In all the time I have been on here I have watched Fred regularly take a vitriolic battering from you and many others, its so easy to all tuen your attention towards him, he has a right to say what he wants to say and so do I, but I don't need to pigeonhole you to make my point. I seem to remember someone being censored and warned over the last couple of weeks for their contribution to the forum and it wasn't fred. You might not like Fred but he gets steam rollered every time he comes in here, but he doesn't falter, he is using his right of free speech, and from what I have seen in the last 6 months or so on here, he does it with a certain amount more decorum than plenty others. Vitriolic is most certainly not a word I would associate with Fred.
Edit: Also I might add this is your first post in this thread, it does not relate to the subject matter, you didn't respond to the idea of the petition and just made a plain attack on the character of another community member, is that called being a well intentioned orger, lead by example as they say. Technically your post should be deemed as breaking the forum rules....again.
"Trolling"
This describes various practices including, starting a thread with a view to raising the tempers of others, bringing back to the top old threads that have died out naturally with a pointless quip, needling other members into a pointless argument. Accusations of trolling will be based on our own view of posts and the initial reaction by our members.
Quirbal said
Yes Fred, whilst the western allies might have a something to answer for the Red Army liberating Eastern Europe were as bad as the Nazis.
Aye, but isn't it roughly the same logic as Iraq. If the Germans/Americans/Brits hadn't started the killing, the subsequent bloodshed wouldn't have happened.
Well yes it's exactly like Iraq, the initial crime of starting a war of aggression is the cause of all the other war crimes.
It was Germany's initial acts of aggression which led to the other crimes so their leaders were tried at Nuremburg and hung. It was Blair's initial act of aggression which led to the other crimes in Iraq and if it was justice for the Germans it would be justice for him.
wavy davy
02-May-07, 01:28
We’ve just had a couple of weeks of good humoured banter, a bit of news of what’s happening in Caithness and Scotland as a whole, we’ve even managed to have a laugh now and again. Then what happens, someone, probably well intentioned, posts a thread which involves the ‘I’ word, yep that’s right, Iraq. Suddenly, from wherever he has been hibernating comes dear old Fred. The oracle, the fountain of all knowledge, the righter of all wrongs. Once again we are subjected to the same vitriolic detritus which we had been so blessedly spared of late.
Never mind they were a pleasant couple of weeks while they lasted. :~(
You knew what the thread topic was - if you're so concerned about the "I word" - why bother looking and posting?
Jeemag_USA
02-May-07, 01:43
A much more important thing than a petition to punish a prime minister who was voted in by a majority of the British public, would be for people to start learning from History rather than dwelling on it. History is a very important source of education, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the main cause of problems in the world for centuries has been the very poor foreign policy of many so called democratically elected governements. Every action has a reaction, you could spen hours analysing why the middle east is such a hot spot, but I can garauntee you after analysing it you can't just say they started it all themselves. Many different European governments and the US government have latched on to powerful figures in many different middle eastern countries and tried to use them to their best advantage, and it has all revolved around money, I won't say oil for now because oil means money, its money is what its all about. The same governements will change alliegance at the drop of a hat, depending where the most moolah can be made and this causes people to enact retribution. You cannot as a government raise people up to help your plans and then beat them down when the time suits and expect no adverse reaction. You have to have a broad minded view of all of the history behind things, as people you have to look at the past and stand up for what you think is right, hassle your politicians, let yourself be heard, make sure you have an active role in making sure the wrong lessons learned in history do not repeat themselves. If Blair is single handedly to blame then a large majority of the electoral role in the UK is also to blame. Using a petition as a head hunting tool is not going to solve anybody's problems is it?
I seem to remember someone asking people to sign a petition for inquests into killed servicemen and we left it alone. I remember someone asking people to sign a petition to bring back military hospitals and we left it alone.
Sweetheart asks people to sign a petition to bring a war criminal to justice and the clique are in there arguing against.Curioser and curioser fred. Is that the Royal “We” or the Pressure Group “We”?
sweetheart
02-May-07, 07:57
Gee whiz..... sometimes I despair. Sweetheart, do you really and truly believe Al Qaeda exists because of "British and American crimes in the Middle East?" They exist because they're committed to the overthrow of the West and Western values, and they'd laugh at your ignorance while they shot you.
.
Who's doing the the killing out there? Answer - Islamic insurgents. Who's breaking the Iraqi infrastructure every time someone makes a bit of it work? Islamic insurgents.
All that Spartist claptrap about "war criminals" is infantile and pointless. The criminals here are the insurgents, funded by Iran / Syria and some Saudi elements, who deliberately target civilians in a desperate attempt to prevent democracy being established in Iraq - democracy is regarded by them as heretical and anti-Islamic
I'm afraid that's not in keeping with the truth. The sunni and shiite civil war
is exacerbated by a mostly shiite administration that is governing in a
winner take all approach that creates an insurgency on behalf of the
repressed sunnis.... even mainstream media knows this, they're not
insurgents but rather jacobites, IRA, UDP... internal political forces seeking
self determination rather than an imposed occupation.
I'm sure you're aware of the longer history of british genocide in iraq,
and this chapter is following on that ugly stink that was not prosecuted then,
so it seems any british prime minister can lie and decieve to murder iraqi's
and its all ok, but when some local iraqi political groups oppose their
genocidal invaders, i'm supposed to be afraid here in north scotland and
send my babies to die in asian deserts... bollocks.
Al queda is nothing compared with the terror of our security forces, and the
mass murders they've inflicted... AQ is a bit player, heck, without the
US military's demolitions expertise they would have failed to take down the
towers and bush's saudi buddies wouldn't have given him the causus belli
of the unquestioned 9/11.
And worst of all, blair has crap military advisors who are probably replacing
steel in battle tanks with wood given how steel melts so readily from jet
fuel, a highly weak metal for any military needs. Or, they've loaded Jp4
jet fuel in to all british anti-tank munitions so that it will melt any steel
down to the ground in 1/2 an hour... crap advisors.
Well, since bliar's crap advisors are not worthy of a place in any government,
let alone a military, these disgraceful sods have bought the american CIA
false flag operation hook line and sinker... that they even today pretend
that the war was a noble cause and that boys are not being pissed away
in to the desert for a crime... a crime.
If you lie to an old lady and steal her pension, you'll get a stint in the dock.
If you lie to a whole country and murder a million people, people will
apologise for you and white wash war crimes rather than deal with the
very real responsbility they bear in the support of those war crimes and criminals both.
I wont be signing any petition because my opinion of Tony Blair is flavoured by the idea that he is basically a good man. I'm grateful to Fred though, for keeping the org alive with alternative views.
Using a petition as a head hunting tool is not going to solve anybody's problems is it?
The next stage of the plan is to hit Iran. Wipe out their defences with air attacks then take the oil producing regions which border with Iraq. The only thing that can stop them is public opinion.
I wont be signing any petition because my opinion of Tony Blair is flavoured by the idea that he is basically a good man.
He's caused the deaths of a million people with what he knew was an illegal act, he lied to Parliament and the British people to make it look legal at the time.
How many lives does "being a good man" excuse? How much pain and suffering? Do you think a vicar who murders a young girl should be excused because he is a good man?
There is a lot of evil in this world and every perpetrator has a family, every rapist has a mother or children who think they are a good man, who refuse to believe they committed the crime despite the evidence, their loyalty is greater than their reason, that is the state the country is in with Blair.
Face facts, he is not a "good man", his actions prove that.
Curioser and curioser fred. Is that the Royal “We” or the Pressure Group “We”?
That is those who oppose the war in Iraq, those who see an Iraqi death as being as great a tragedy as a British death, an Iraqi life as having the same value as a British life.
Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane
Dusty.
[QUOTE=fred;218688]
What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars.
QUOTE]
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinenorthernireland.htm
Dusty
The problem is RELIGON, oil is a currently convenient excuse to prolong the argument.
As soon as we can all agree to get rid of ALL religons, these types of problems will also go.
Yasser Arafat said "Basically we kill each other to see who has the best God" or something along those lines. He could see the futility but felt he had to continue with the offensive.
Dusty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane
Dusty.
And your point is?
[
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinenorthernireland.htm
Dusty
And your point is?
The problem is RELIGON, oil is a currently convenient excuse to prolong the argument.
Rubbish.
The world is full of countries with different religions, loads of countries a greater threat, plenty of countries with worse human rights records we invaded to put military bases in the centre of the major oil producing region of the world.
Religion is the convenient excuse.
Fred,
You asked "Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?" and I offered the link to illustrate that in some instances they did.
You stated "What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars." and I offered the link to illustrate that the problems that contributed to the carnage in Ireland have been in existance a lot longer than thirty five years.
The Muslims have been pursuing a goal of making their religon THE major world religous force as their teachers have decreed the Koran states.
This has been occurring since the 10th Century with massacres occurring intermittantly.
Many other cultures also indulge themselves in religous warfare and in all of them, a faction may be found that co-exist peacably. It is the extremists who foment the discontent under the guise of religous teachings so religion is the problem.
The Muslim religion will remain a problem as long as the fanatics are feeding the gullable masses with fundamentalist clap-trap. The Mulims are now where we were 700 years ago with regard to religon (even their calander says so) and until they fast forward into reality it will ever be so.
Dusty.
Fred,
You asked "Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?" and I offered the link to illustrate that in some instances they did.
Then you were agreeing with me that what the coalition is doing in Iraq is the same as the Germans did in Poland.
You stated "What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars." and I offered the link to illustrate that the problems that contributed to the carnage in Ireland have been in existance a lot longer than thirty five years.
That's like saying that Britain being at war with Germany from 1914 to 1918 was what caused WWII. All countries have a history of unrest, the latest unrest was sparked by Bloody Sunday, the underlying cause has always been the persecution of Catholics by the Loyalists.
The Muslims have been pursuing a goal of making their religon THE major world religous force as their teachers have decreed the Koran states.
This has been occurring since the 10th Century with massacres occurring intermittantly.
Many other cultures also indulge themselves in religous warfare and in all of them, a faction may be found that co-exist peacably. It is the extremists who foment the discontent under the guise of religous teachings so religion is the problem.
The Muslim religion will remain a problem as long as the fanatics are feeding the gullable masses with fundamentalist clap-trap. The Mulims are now where we were 700 years ago with regard to religon (even their calander says so) and until they fast forward into reality it will ever be so.
Dusty.
You are making no sense whatsoever. Nobody denies there are a few Muslim fanatics in the world same as any other religion but what are they going to do? Invade Britain and America, overthrow the governments and impose their religion on us?
And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, there was no link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that was another lie.
It's a lame excuse, very lame, can't even struggle to its knees. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and it's neighbours have a lot of the rest, that is why we invaded, no other reason.
There are many aspects of Fred’s argument/opinion that I agree with, however there is a lot of misinformation, ill-conceived ideas, simplistic representation and erstwhile propaganda (that is not exclusive to Fred by the way).
Sunni & Shia may have lived side by side, however like elsewhere in the middle east it is not always in harmony, and there is little inter-marriage between the “religions”. One of the great fears BEFORE the war was that there would be a push by the Shia population for power and this would spread down through Kuwait, into the Saudi Easter Province and into Bahrain. I have seen no evidence that the UK/USA would back such a move as there is significant opposition from its “allies” in the region.
There is no doubt a lot of underhand and dirty tricks going on by Intelligence (sic) agencies – the latest appears to be murmurings of Al Qaeda operations/training in Iran…….anyone who knows anything about Al Qaeda/Iran knows this simply will not happen. One of the stated objectives of A Qaeda is to sort out the Shia……..but they can wait till the Infidels are sorted out.
Fred, asked who these radical Islamists are – well there are quite a few and I have neither the time not the inclination to list something that others can discover with a modicum or research – I have already listed a book which is a good starting point.
To blame the troubles/conflict in Northern Ireland on the actions of the Para’s is niave as always there are two sides to an argument and to get an understanding of why things occur you need to listen to/seek information from both sides.
porshiepoo
02-May-07, 19:18
A much more important thing than a petition to punish a prime minister who was voted in by a majority of the British public, would be for people to start learning from History rather than dwelling on it. History is a very important source of education, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the main cause of problems in the world for centuries has been the very poor foreign policy of many so called democratically elected governements. Every action has a reaction, you could spen hours analysing why the middle east is such a hot spot, but I can garauntee you after analysing it you can't just say they started it all themselves. Many different European governments and the US government have latched on to powerful figures in many different middle eastern countries and tried to use them to their best advantage, and it has all revolved around money, I won't say oil for now because oil means money, its money is what its all about. The same governements will change alliegance at the drop of a hat, depending where the most moolah can be made and this causes people to enact retribution. You cannot as a government raise people up to help your plans and then beat them down when the time suits and expect no adverse reaction. You have to have a broad minded view of all of the history behind things, as people you have to look at the past and stand up for what you think is right, hassle your politicians, let yourself be heard, make sure you have an active role in making sure the wrong lessons learned in history do not repeat themselves. If Blair is single handedly to blame then a large majority of the electoral role in the UK is also to blame. Using a petition as a head hunting tool is not going to solve anybody's problems is it?
Hear hear!
Personally IMO I think that if mothers ruled the world there'd be none of this - problem solved. :lol:
Well yes it's exactly like Iraq, the initial crime of starting a war of aggression is the cause of all the other war crimes.
It was Germany's initial acts of aggression which led to the other crimes so their leaders were tried at Nuremburg and hung. It was Blair's initial act of aggression which led to the other crimes in Iraq and if it was justice for the Germans it would be justice for him.
No Fred, not quite right - this particular petition is trying to get Blair tried for Genocide. This would be Count IV of the Nuremburg Indictments.
If you read the Nuremburg war trials you will see that those found guilty on Count IV were done so because they gave either direct orders to or turned a blind eye to the actions of their troops ie German troops.
I have stated that if Blair is to be tried for genocide then UK troops (those who Blair has direct control over) must be carrying out these acts. I cannot believe that they are doing this and therefore Blair is not guilty of genocide.
The many problems Iraq currently has can be solved, but it takes all sides to come together.
It is notable that one area of Iraq - the Kurdistan area is being regenerated and the conditions of the population are improving by the day. In the Shia and Sunni areas this is not happening.
Could this be due to the more peaceful nature of the area?
No Fred, not quite right - this particular petition is trying to get Blair tried for Genocide. This would be Count IV of the Nuremburg Indictments.
Have you read the petition?
Have you read the petition?
Yes, not much to it I am afraid is there.
(1) Then you were agreeing with me that what the coalition is doing in Iraq is the same as the Germans did in Poland.
(1) No fred, what I'm doing is attempting to offer some guidance as to a direction to where your question regarding what Hitler and Stalin did in respect of rounding up and carrying out reprisals may be found.
(2) That's like saying that Britain being at war with Germany from 1914 to 1918 was what caused WWII. All countries have a history of unrest, the latest unrest was sparked by Bloody Sunday, the underlying cause has always been the persecution of Catholics by the Loyalists.
(2) I was under the impression that the punitive terms of surrender imposed on Germany by the Allies was in great part to blame for the exaggerated economic depression (at a time of depression globally) that aided Hitler's rise to power and that Hitler's expansionist ambitions led to the Second World War, so, I think that Britain being at war with Germany from 1914 to 1918 was at the very least, a massively important causal factor if not the direct cause.
Ireland's problems stem from the taking over of their land by the English and them doling it out to favoured families over years and years. The Loyalist/Unionist thing came later as a result of the foregoing.
(3) You are making no sense whatsoever. Nobody denies there are a few Muslim fanatics in the world same as any other religion but what are they going to do? Invade Britain and America, overthrow the governments and impose their religion on us?
And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, there was no link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that was another lie.
It's a lame excuse, very lame, can't even struggle to its knees. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and it's neighbours have a lot of the rest, that is why we invaded, no other reason.
(3) There are none so blind as those who won't see.
It is not possible to make sense to someone who will not concede that there might be some truth in another's argument.
There are not a few Muslim fanatics, they are in the majority and yes, they do wish to impose their religion on us, it's what they believe the Koran tells them to do. Ignore them at your peril for their invasion is already under way by the looks of things.
I don't recollect mentioning Iraq or Al Qaeda?
I don't think I offered religion as an excuse, rather I ventured that it was the reason for the ills.
By the way, I agree that we invaded Iraq to protect the supply of oil but that too may be construed as a religious crusade if you believe the "For God and Country" hype which is similar to what was also trotted out at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Anyway, I have now made my last post on this subject.
Dusty.
There are many aspects of Fred’s argument/opinion that I agree with, however there is a lot of misinformation, ill-conceived ideas, simplistic representation and erstwhile propaganda (that is not exclusive to Fred by the way).
Sunni & Shia may have lived side by side, however like elsewhere in the middle east it is not always in harmony, and there is little inter-marriage between the “religions”.
Well now I have it from a number of sources inside Iraq that there was, including one reporter who's mother was Sunni and father Shia.
However if you feel that may be propaganda then how about the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-5.html)?
We Know Iraqis Can Live Together Peacefully. Iraq is a nation with many ethnic, religious, sectarian, regional, and tribal divisions - and before Saddam, Iraqis from different communities managed to live together. Even today, many Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shia branches, and in many small towns with mixed populations, there is often only one mosque, where Sunnis and Shia worship together. Intermarriage is common, with mixed families that include Arabs, Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Turkmen, Assyrians, and Caldeans.
I thought those troops that were accused of torture at abu graibh were tried and found guilty of war crimes? I can't see that happening to members of Al quaeda.:mad: I can't see that happening to the Iranian General who now wears a bravery medal and who held a gun to our illegally kidnapped troops.
You are right, they probably wont be brought to trial.
However the first part of your argument shows what is best about Britain. We often stand up for what is right, and if we get it wrong we show the world we practice what we preach. Even if it means admitting that some of us have done something wrong - we do so and we face the consequences.
My only wish is that Blair and Bush would show even a fraction of the courage those troops you spoke of showed and do the same.
Then you were agreeing with me that what the coalition is doing in Iraq is the same as the Germans did in Poland.
I suggest a bit of research is required before making a statement like that
That's like saying that Britain being at war with Germany from 1914 to 1918 was what caused WWII.
I doubt you will find many historians who wolud question the role the Treaty of Versailles was of least partialy to blame for WWII.
All countries have a history of unrest, the latest unrest was sparked by Bloody Sunday, the underlying cause has always been the persecution of Catholics by the Loyalists.
Untrue, I believe that the latest troubles were sparked of by a march in Londonderry in 1968 and not Bloody Sunday.
You are making no sense whatsoever. Nobody denies there are a few Muslim fanatics in the world same as any other religion but what are they going to do? Invade Britain and America, overthrow the governments and impose their religion on us?
The problem is Fred they are pushing their fundamentalism into others faces and carrying out attrocities.
And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, there was no link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that was another lie.
Agreed, there was very little love lost between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and it's neighbours have a lot of the rest,
Correct
that is why we invaded, no other reason.
Thats a matter of opinion.
You are right, they probably wont be brought to trial.
However the first part of your argument shows what is best about Britain. We often stand up for what is right, and if we get it wrong we show the world we practice what we preach. Even if it means admitting that some of us have done something wrong - we do so and we face the consequences.
My only wish is that Blair and Bush would show even a fraction of the courage those troops you spoke of showed and do the same.
There was a time Tristan, however Blair isn't too interested in justice or he wouldn't have dropped the investigation into the British Aerospace bribery allegations. That sent a message to the world that Britain isn't interested in law and order and considerably lowered our standing.
It would appear that the Petition has so far reached the grand total of less than 1,500 signatures despite the fact that it is being run by the leader of the "Stop the War Coalition".
To put it in perspective, there is more support for a Petition to end the 10 MPH speed restriction for boats on Lake Windermere.
It would appear that the Petition has so far reached the grand total of less than 1,500 signatures despite the fact that it is being run by the leader of the "Stop the War Coalition".
To put it in perspective, there is more support for a Petition to end the 10 MPH speed restriction for boats on Lake Windermere.
Yes, I think that says it all.
Yes, I think that says it all.
Come off it the petition doesn't end till 22 December, plenty of time yet.
Well now I have it from a number of sources inside Iraq that there was, including one reporter who's mother was Sunni and father Shia.
However if you feel that may be propaganda then how about the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-5.html)?
Exceptions dont make the rule. I have to laugh at your source of information (oh the irony). Sunni and Shai would NEVER pray at the same mosque. In Saudi there is little or no integration. Much of the marriage is inter-tribal, and those do not cross religous divides.
Exceptions dont make the rule. I have to laugh at your source of information (oh the irony). Sunni and Shai would NEVER pray at the same mosque. In Saudi there is little or no integration. Much of the marriage is inter-tribal, and those do not cross religous divides.
We aren't talking about Saudi we are talking about Iraq, Catholic and Protestant see each other a lot differently in Ireland than they do in England what happens in Saudi is no guide.
How about this from the United Nations Refugee Agency Magazine. (http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/461e34e92.html)
Qais is Sunni. Layla is a Kurdish Shia. It seems strange now, but at that time – just four years ago – their religious identities were not considered important.
"Both my parents are Shia, but it wasn't a problem," said Layla, during a recent interview in the Syrian capital Damascus.
"Mixed marriage was very common in Iraq between Sunnis, Shia and Christians," explained her husband. "My mother is Shia and my father is Sunni, and we lived in a mixed Sunni-Shia neighbourhood. The stratification of society into religious sects was not part of our society."
Sorry Fred, I cannot agree to this petition.
I do believe that Blair was very wrong to lie and hoodwink the UK for contrived and hyped reasons into this ongoing fiasco, but I do not believe he should effectively stand trial for crimes against humanity. There are plenty of things which I think he is guilty of and which absolutely he should be barbequed for, but not this. IMO it's too fierce an accusation.
I respect your view and I support your wish to see Blair subjected to a formal proceedings because he's obviously guilty of something, even if there has been a lot of shifty burying of useable evidence making that to be almost an impossibility. I'm not signing the petition though!
Fred, you may recall that many different ethnic groups lived happily together in the former Yugoslavia - then ethnic, national, cultural and political differences set them up agianst each other. If you think the Sunni/Shia conflict or lack of it pre-Iraq war is a base for the greater region - then you are as big a fool as those who drew up the invasion strategy.
Fred, you may recall that many different ethnic groups lived happily together in the former Yugoslavia - then ethnic, national, cultural and political differences set them up agianst each other. If you think the Sunni/Shia conflict or lack of it pre-Iraq war is a base for the greater region - then you are as big a fool as those who drew up the invasion strategy.
No sectarian violence in Iraq prior to our invasion, Sunni and Shia lived side by side and married freely.
We invade and now it is civil war.
Blair is directly responsible for the bloodshed and should be held to account, he and the others who plotted the invasion committed a crime and should be responsible for the result of that crime.
That's how things work in a free and democratic civilised society isn't it? That's what we in the West are supposed to represent, what our troops are supposed to be fighting for isn't it?
Blair is directly responsible for the bloodshed and should be held to account, he and the others who plotted the invasion committed a crime and should be responsible for the result of that crime.
I think that a Court would find it difficult to prove that Blair intentionally invaded Iraq for the purpose of starting a civil war with the loss of a million lives. Not guilty.
I think that a Court would find it difficult to prove that Blair intentionally invaded Iraq for the purpose of starting a civil war with the loss of a million lives. Not guilty.
Exactly, only by drawing conclusions and by including circumstantial evidence can there be even so much as a claim for consequential losses (including the loss of life).
No sectarian violence in Iraq prior to our invasion, Sunni and Shia lived side by side and married freely.
We invade and now it is civil war.
Blair is directly responsible for the bloodshed and should be held to account, he and the others who plotted the invasion committed a crime and should be responsible for the result of that crime.
That's how things work in a free and democratic civilised society isn't it? That's what we in the West are supposed to represent, what our troops are supposed to be fighting for isn't it?
You are speaking absolute tosh and you know it.
Using your example you may as well blame Ford for the drunk driver that causes an accident in a Ford car.
Blair is responsible for the actions of UK troops only and not the actions of the Shia/Sunni militia.
You are speaking absolute tosh and you know it.
Using your example you may as well blame Ford for the drunk driver that causes an accident in a Ford car.
Blair is responsible for the actions of UK troops only and not the actions of the Shia/Sunni militia.
We know the invasion was illegal, we know the Attorney General informed Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal on the 22nd of July 2002, if it were to come to international court he would be found guilty without a doubt, he wouldn't have a defence.
All that has happened in Iraq since has been as a result of that crime. If you commit an armed robbery, which basically we did, and somebody gets killed then that is murder if you intended somebody to get killed or not.
The facts are clear cut, there was no legal basis for our invasion and occupation of Iraq under international law, it was an act of aggression, it was the exact opposite of what we in the West are supposed to stand for.
We know the invasion was illegal, we know the Attorney General informed Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal on the 22nd of July 2002, if it were to come to international court he would be found guilty without a doubt, he wouldn't have a defence.
All that has happened in Iraq since has been as a result of that crime. If you commit an armed robbery, which basically we did, and somebody gets killed then that is murder if you intended somebody to get killed or not.
The facts are clear cut, there was no legal basis for our invasion and occupation of Iraq under international law, it was an act of aggression, it was the exact opposite of what we in the West are supposed to stand for.
So Alfred Nobel is responsible for how people have subsequently used dynamite, as surely he gave them to opportunity to use it?
No Fred, stop making excuses for these militias - they are responsible for their own actions NOT Tony Blair or George Bush.
You might want to argue that Bush and Blair have given them the opportunity to carry out their crimes, but they are not forcing them to do so. I have told you more than once that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
You make the point that Sunni and Shia lived side by side peacefully before the invasion. Have you ever asked yourself why? Could it be the same reason that the Serbs, Croats, Albanians etc lived together peacefully in Yugoslavia for many years?
Maybe the type of government that was in place was responsible. Just maybe the fear of disappearing in the middle of the night was enough to stop their actions, just maybe. Dictatorships tend to have that effect Fred.
Iraq is going through what most of Europe went through during the 1930's and 1940's, it is the populations reaction to democracy, and as in Europe unfortunately, if that region of the world wants democracy then it will be a painful process.
So Alfred Nobel is responsible for how people have subsequently used dynamite, as surely he gave them to opportunity to use it?
Did Alfred Nobel commit any crimes? Did he break international law and launch a war of aggression on a defenceless country?
No Fred, stop making excuses for these militias - they are responsible for their own actions NOT Tony Blair or George Bush.
Are you trying to say that everyone who has died, been maimed, been made homeless in Iraq it was done by the militias?
Under the Geneva Convention it is the responsibility of the occupying power to protect the civilian population we have failed in our duty once again.
You are the one making excuses, pathetic half baked excuses for the chickenhawk criminals who started this war.
International law is clear, there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq, a crime was committed. Now do we in the West stand for freedom, justice and democracy or are we a bunch of pirates?
I am sure there is a lot more freedom of speech, democracy and justice in Iraq now than before. I don't think the Sunnis and Shia insurgents want those things. Are you suggesting we should take the gloves off??
Did Alfred Nobel commit any crimes? Did he break international law and launch a war of aggression on a defenceless country?
No, what I am suggesting is that he gave others the opportunity to just as Blair and bush have. It does not make him responsible for the actions of others, and Blair cannnot be blamed for the actions of others that he does not have control over.
Are you trying to say that everyone who has died, been maimed, been made homeless in Iraq it was done by the militias?
No, of course not. Of course the coalition troops have killed Iraqis, some innocent and some not. I am not saying that that that is correct and any loss of innocent life should be avoided however, unlike you Fred I am not blaming the coalition troops for ALL the deaths.
Under the Geneva Convention it is the responsibility of the occupying power to protect the civilian population we have failed in our duty once again.
Well what do you suggest Fred? Its fairly obvious that in parts of Iraq we have failed to protect the local population.
How would you deal with this? How do you stop someone with 5kg of explosive strapped to them from walking into a crowded market and blowing themselves up? Would you be happy if there were coalition troops on every corner, a 24hr curfew and a shoot to kill policy on everyone that breaks it?
Of least we are making our best attempts to make the streets safe, can you think of a better way - bear in mind the current situation, and saying that we should not have invaded in not an option - we have and we have to deal with the current circumstances.
You are the one making excuses, pathetic half baked excuses for the chickenhawk criminals who started this war.
Fred, I would really re read what you are writing. You are just going overboard. Whilst I can agree with some of your points, and can see why you hold others some are just beyond a joke. Are you playing devils advocate?
International law is clear, there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq, a crime was committed.
That depends on your point of view.
Now do we in the West stand for freedom, justice and democracy or are we a bunch of pirates?
Obviously we have democracy, justice and freedom. You will be exercising your democratic right today won't you? You are free to say what you like on the internet re the government (unlike Abdel Kareem), and we have a justice system that is recognised internationally as one of the best, the envy of the world.
Fred, I would really re read what you are writing. You are just going overboard. Whilst I can agree with some of your points, and can see why you hold others some are just beyond a joke. Are you playing devils advocate?
I know what I am saying, the truth the facts.
A crime was committed under international law which has caused untold misery and suffering in Iraq and misery and suffering to the families of British servicemen. Blair is a criminal and should be brought to trial for the deaths he has caused.
That's plain simple truth, that is how justice works, the people of Iraq and the families of the British servicemen deserve justice.
You keep coming out with stupid arguments none of which alter those facts.
I know what I am saying, the truth the facts.
A crime was committed under international law which has caused untold misery and suffering in Iraq and misery and suffering to the families of British servicemen. Blair is a criminal and should be brought to trial for the deaths he has caused.
That's plain simple truth, that is how justice works, the people of Iraq and the families of the British servicemen deserve justice.
You keep coming out with stupid arguments none of which alter those facts.
You are playing devils advocate, you little beggar, you! Gee Fred, thats what I like about you, you're never knocked down!
Would you like to answer my other points, or are you being selective again?
Undoubtably, the invasion has caused death and misery, but can you seriously blame Blair for it all? Can you explain to me how Blair is responsible for somebody walking into a market and blowing themselves up, as I cannot see how you can blame that on him?
You are playing devils advocate, you little beggar, you! Gee Fred, thats what I like about you, you're never knocked down!
Would you like to answer my other points, or are you being selective again?
Undoubtably, the invasion has caused death and misery, but can you seriously blame Blair for it all? Can you explain to me how Blair is responsible for somebody walking into a market and blowing themselves up, as I cannot see how you can blame that on him?
There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq's history before we invaded, since we invaded they happen every day, it is obvious that the bombings are as a result of the invasion. A highly predictable result at that.
Even if this was not the case it would make no difference, it's just another of your stupid illogical arguments, murder is murder, the killing of one person is murder, you keep saying we can't blame Blair for all the deaths, I can but even if I couldn't he would still be guilty of murdering the rest.
Now once again your arguments are meaningless, the invasion was illegal under international law, Blair is a war criminal, he should be tried for his war crimes in an international court.
There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq's history before we invaded, since we invaded they happen every day, it is obvious that the bombings are as a result of the invasion. A highly predictable result at that.
I'll throw that back at you - nobody was killed by dynamite until Nobel invented it. Is he responsible for all the deaths caused by it since?
Blair might have been partly responsible for the invasion of Iraq, but he is not responsible for the suicide bombings.
If i give you a gun Fred, am I responsible for you pulling the trigger, or are you? Are you aware of personal responsibility or is that not a concept that exists in your odd little world?
Even if this was not the case it would make no difference, it's just another of your stupid illogical arguments, murder is murder, the killing of one person is murder,
Murder is murder, that is correct.
you keep saying we can't blame Blair for all the deaths, I can but even if I couldn't he would still be guilty of murdering the rest.
You can, but then I can say that 2+2=5 - that does not mean it is correct.
Now once again your arguments are meaningless, the invasion was illegal under international law, Blair is a war criminal, he should be tried for his war crimes in an international court.
Again, your opinion, an opinion that is deeply flawed like all your reasoning.
Again, your opinion, an opinion that is deeply flawed like all your reasoning.
No, not just an opinion a fact.
Again your arguments are meaningless nobody with half a brain could take them seriously. Blair started a war of aggression against a country which was no threat to Britain, he broke international law and he knew he was breaking international law because the Attorney General told him so. He is a criminal and should be brought to justice.
No, not just an opinion a fact.
Again your arguments are meaningless nobody with half a brain could take them seriously. Blair started a war of aggression against a country which was no threat to Britain, he broke international law and he knew he was breaking international law because the Attorney General told him so. He is a criminal and should be brought to justice.
Well unfortunately less that 1500 agree with you - have you asked yourself why?
Well unfortunately less that 1500 agree with you - have you asked yourself why?
Again you are making stupid statements, you have no evidence of how many people even know about the poll or what the final result will be.
Now read this (http://www.mfaw.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=1) and see what some people who do agree with me have to say then make up your mind if you support them or the lying mass murderer Blair.
Fine! So a handful of people with relatives in the Army have become part of the "Stop the War" group of political activists.
I'm sure there were similar families who felt exactly the same during WW2, especially at the beginning when we appeared to be on a hiding to nothing.
Perhaps we should have listened to them in 1940 and just given up? After all, even the ex-King was part of "Stop the War" then.
Fine! So a handful of people with relatives in the Army have become part of the "Stop the War" group of political activists.
I'm sure there were similar families who felt exactly the same during WW2, especially at the beginning when we appeared to be on a hiding to nothing.
Perhaps we should have listened to them in 1940 and just given up? After all, even the ex-King was part of "Stop the War" then.
I'm sure that there were people in Germany who were opposed to the war.
In 1940 it was the other side launching unprovoked attacks on defenceless countries to steal their natural resources.
Again you are making stupid statements, you have no evidence of how many people even know about the poll or what the final result will be.
Correct, but at the current rate of signing by Sunday it will have gained another whooping TWO votes.
More people would like Jeremy Clarkson to be Prime Minister (possibly you would prefer him to Blair).
I'm sure that there were people in Germany who were opposed to the war.
In 1940 it was the other side launching unprovoked attacks on defenceless countries to steal their natural resources.
Cough Cough!! Ehemm ! World War Two in Europe began on 3rd September 1939, when the Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, declared war on Germany
Cough Cough!! Ehemm ! World War Two in Europe began on 3rd September 1939, when the Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, declared war on Germany
And there was me thinking it was because Hitler invaded Poland.
And there was me thinking it was because Hitler invaded Poland.
Yes, Hitler invaded Poland in 1940. Neville Chamberlain, wanting to eradicate the memory of the waving of the lavvy paper with Hitler's autograph on it, got hold of the Prototype Steam Powered Tardis and went back in time to 1939 in order to declare war on Germany.
sweetheart
04-May-07, 22:22
The system the nazis used, instilling fear in a population using pervasive corporate propaganda, and then using this fear to increase military spending
and foreign warmongering to gain resources for this corporate dystopic vision;
this system was copied by the USA after world war 2, britain as well, we
always need a new cold war to keep the security establishment in employment.
Notice how the police/military/nuclear establishment is so pro-keeping their jobs.
By 2100, caithness will be remembered fondly as the world's largest windfarm,
powered by the giant war economy that, unlike the nazi reich, has really
indeed conquored the entire planet with its resource colonialism. Then its
job is to mine your soul, to incubate your heart with its viral perpetuation,
that you spend and waste god's goodwill on rubbish mass murder and
defending such horrible behaviour.
Blair has just lost by nationwide petition on his war crimes, just today,
and the SNP rules scotland for it. Thank you for signing.
And there was me thinking it was because Hitler invaded Poland.Wrong again, Fred. It was all about Oil and organised by the CIA!
Correct, but at the current rate of signing by Sunday it will have gained another whooping TWO votes.
More people would like Jeremy Clarkson to be Prime Minister (possibly you would prefer him to Blair).
I'm having a lot of trouble getting through to you but I'll try and explain it as simply as I can. The poll doesn't end until 22nd of December, if it were a football match they would have been playing for about 5 minutes, a bit early to start predicting the result.
Yes, Hitler invaded Poland in 1940. Neville Chamberlain, wanting to eradicate the memory of the waving of the lavvy paper with Hitler's autograph on it, got hold of the Prototype Steam Powered Tardis and went back in time to 1939 in order to declare war on Germany.
I'd credited you with a bit more intelligence than golach scorrie, now go back and read what I wrote.
In 1940 it was the other side launching unprovoked attacks on defenceless countries to steal their natural resources.
In 1940 Hitler invaded Denmark and Norway, it was JAWS who chose the year not me, it was golach who started sprouting irrelevant rubbish about 1939.
I'm having a lot of trouble getting through to you but I'll try and explain it as simply as I can. The poll doesn't end until 22nd of December, if it were a football match they would have been playing for about 5 minutes, a bit early to start predicting the result.
Yes Fred, I had noted that. But the uptake has not been very good.
The Jeremy Clarkson one end on 7th April 2008 by the way, if you would like to sign up.
The system the nazis used, instilling fear in a population using pervasive corporate propaganda, and then using this fear to increase military spending
and foreign warmongering to gain resources for this corporate dystopic vision;
this system was copied by the USA after world war 2, britain as well, we
always need a new cold war to keep the security establishment in employment.
Notice how the police/military/nuclear establishment is so pro-keeping their jobs.
By 2100, caithness will be remembered fondly as the world's largest windfarm,
powered by the giant war economy that, unlike the nazi reich, has really
indeed conquored the entire planet with its resource colonialism. Then its
job is to mine your soul, to incubate your heart with its viral perpetuation,
that you spend and waste god's goodwill on rubbish mass murder and
defending such horrible behaviour.
Blair has just lost by nationwide petition on his war crimes, just today,
and the SNP rules scotland for it. Thank you for signing.
ha, ha, ha, ha - are you for real?
Are you suggesting that everybody else is actively seeking unemployment?
In 1940 Hitler invaded Denmark and Norway, it was JAWS who chose the year not me, it was golach who started sprouting irrelevant rubbish about 1939.
Yes, yes, I can agree that Germany invaded Norway and Denmark in 1940.
He also invaded a few other countries, cant remember what they were......
Yes, yes, I can agree that Germany invaded Norway and Denmark in 1940.
He also invaded a few other countries, cant remember what they were......
That's settled then.
Now for the question of why we went to war with Iraq, there is an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6627381.stm) on the BBC web site today which suggests may find out.
If the original dossier is released and there is no mention of WMD which could be fired at us in 45 minutes then that means one thing, it was lie, a blatant despicable lie without which we would not have gone to war and a lot of British servicemen would not have died in vain.
sweetheart
05-May-07, 12:39
Prison guards need jobs, so they only elect representatives who support more
prisons so that their kids can stay in the profession. Quirbal, my post was
reflecting on the irony that the persons who are in this thread even, who are
arguing pro=warcrimes, are police state employees or retired, and they are
justifying the need for a society that is criminal.
Its a fear-based society where these brave employees are willing to take
billions in taxes to finance a totally worthless wasteful carbon-emitting pile
of wars and nuclear submarines, all because they've got big egos and are
unable to conceive of a world where they could not bully us in to such waste.
And here they act like thought police, always bully with the latest war,
*gotta justify themselves*... and my point about employment, needed
clarification..
Prison guards need jobs, so they only elect representatives who support more prisons so that their kids can stay in the profession. Quirbal, my post was reflecting on the irony that the persons who are in this thread even, who are arguing pro=warcrimes, are police state employees or retired, and they are justifying the need for a society that is criminal.
Presumptuous surely?
Its a fear-based society where these brave employees are willing to take billions in taxes to finance a totally worthless wasteful carbon-emitting pile of wars and nuclear submarines, all because they've got big egos and are unable to conceive of a world where they could not bully us in to such waste.
Fear based society? If it were a fear based society then surely you would not be able/willing to post the way you are? Or are you suggesting that the government instils fear into the electorate so that it can invest in these technologies?
And here they act like thought police, always bully with the latest war, *gotta justify themselves*... and my point about employment, needed clarification..
Here people disagree with your point of view - hardly a crime as you disagree with them.
Your point about employment was odd to say the least.
Fear based society? If it were a fear based society then surely you would not be able/willing to post the way you are? Or are you suggesting that the government instils fear into the electorate so that it can invest in these technologies?
Just read the pages of this forum and see the fear, see the people afraid to let their children play on the street. Soon if the government announces they are going to lock paedophiles up for life without trial it will get the backing of the public leaving them free to lock up their political opponents before going looking for rent boys on Hamstead Heath.
See the fear of terrorists, you are more likely to drown in your bath than be killed by a terrorist yet the government can introduce draconian new laws to deal with terrorism. It was the government instilled fear of weapons of mass destruction which allowed them to wage an illegal war of aggression against Iraq and they are using fear of Iran gaining nuclear weapons to push for an illegal war of aggression against Iran.
See the fear of identity theft, of someone spiriting away their money from the bank, fear will prevent people arguing against identity cards and how much power and control will they give the powers that be.
Dr David Kelly tried speaking freely and he wound up dead, the BBC employees who published what he said ended up out of a job.
luskentyre
06-May-07, 15:14
The only reason he was backed by Parliament was because he lied to them, he told them Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be used against us at 45 minutes notice when he knew that wasn't true.
Our soldiers are fighting a war for criminals that is based on a pack of lies.
Yawn....
If the Blair (and Bush) administration was as corrupt as you would have us believe Fred, don't you think it would be a simple matter for the WMD to have been conveniently "found"? I think the fact that they subsequently weren't found proves the fact it was a misunderstanding based on false intelligence. Put simply, you don't leave yourself open to criticism like that if you're a war criminal.
Just read the pages of this forum and see the fear, see the people afraid to let their children play on the street. Soon if the government announces they are going to lock paedophiles up for life without trial it will get the backing of the public leaving them free to lock up their political opponents before going looking for rent boys on Hamstead Heath.
See the fear of terrorists, you are more likely to drown in your bath than be killed by a terrorist yet the government can introduce draconian new laws to deal with terrorism. It was the government instilled fear of weapons of mass destruction which allowed them to wage an illegal war of aggression against Iraq and they are using fear of Iran gaining nuclear weapons to push for an illegal war of aggression against Iran.
See the fear of identity theft, of someone spiriting away their money from the bank, fear will prevent people arguing against identity cards and how much power and control will they give the powers that be.
Dr David Kelly tried speaking freely and he wound up dead, the BBC employees who published what he said ended up out of a job.
Oh, that kind if fear - the light has finally come on!!
Is that not just human nature though? People are always scared about something, be it terrorists, peadophiles, where will I get my next meal from.
Cant really do much about that Fred.
Yawn....
If the Blair (and Bush) administration was as corrupt as you would have us believe Fred, don't you think it would be a simple matter for the WMD to have been conveniently "found"? I think the fact that they subsequently weren't found proves the fact it was a misunderstanding based on false intelligence. Put simply, you don't leave yourself open to criticism like that if you're a war criminal.
Interesting point. I could be wrong but my understanding was that the UN investigators who were in Iraq at the time felt there were no WMD. So where did the "false intelligence" that there were WMD came from?
Yawn....
If the Blair (and Bush) administration was as corrupt as you would have us believe Fred, don't you think it would be a simple matter for the WMD to have been conveniently "found"? I think the fact that they subsequently weren't found proves the fact it was a misunderstanding based on false intelligence. Put simply, you don't leave yourself open to criticism like that if you're a war criminal.
A "misunderstanding", a million dead, two million homeless and a country in civil war is one hell of a misunderstanding.
If the government releases the original dossier as a Judge has told them to then we will know and if they don't then we will know as well. The person who wrote the dossier says it was changed and my money would be on him telling the truth given all the other evidence.
Oh, that kind if fear - the light has finally come on!!
Is that not just human nature though? People are always scared about something, be it terrorists, peadophiles, where will I get my next meal from.
Cant really do much about that Fred.
Or Conspiracies, and the spreaders of conspiracies [lol]
Or Conspiracies, and the spreaders of conspiracies [lol]
Surely you are suggesting that terrorists DIDN'T crash several planes into the WTC, man HAS NOT walked on the moon and that JFK was killed by a LONE gunman?
Can't believe a word you're saying lad! Next you'll be telling me the world is round.
Surely you are suggesting that terrorists DIDN'T crash several planes into the WTC, man HAS NOT walked on the moon and that JFK was killed by a LONE gunman?
Can't believe a word you're saying lad! Next you'll be telling me the world is round.
Interesting set of examples. No one here, or the government, has denied that the planes crashed into the WTC, or that man has walked on the moon.
Your last example is the official government explanation.
Or are you trying to point out that government explanations aren't always consistent?
Or Conspiracies, and the spreaders of conspiracies [lol]
Did you have anything to add to this debate? Some relevant information perhaps? Other than WWII started in 1939 that is.
Somehow I think if it were a million British dead you'd be singing a different tune.
Other than WWII started in 1939 that is.
Indeed it did.
Somehow I think if it were a million British dead you'd be singing a different tune.
Oooohh, you are getting contentious now Fred but yes, you are right - but who is doing most of the killing?
Interesting set of examples.