Blair playing a blinder

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 19 Jul 2005, 11:38

Tears in my eyes when I read this

The Sounds of Hope

Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?
The torrential rains of a mother's weeping will never be done.
They call him a hero, you should be glad he's one, but,
Have you ever heard the sound of a mother screaming for her son?

Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?
They say he must be brave because his boy died for another mans lies.
The only thing he allows himself are long, deep sighs.
Have you ever heard the sound of a father holding back his cries?

Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?
They say he died so the flag will continue to wave,
But I believe he died because they had oil to save.
Have you ever heard the sound of taps played at your brother's grave?

Have you ever heard the sound of a Nation Rocked to Sleep?
The leaders want to keep you numb so the pain won't be so deep,
But if we the people let them continue, another mother will weep.
Have you ever heard the sound of a Nation Rocked to Sleep?

How many more must die!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 19 Jul 2005, 18:18

Porty wrote:
dccairns wrote:Why? In my view he doesn't deserve any credit. If he hadn't joined in with Bush's boys' outing to Iraq, London might not have been attacked yesterday.
There's a lot of tosh gets posted on POL and I'm responsible for a good deal of it but the above beats it all.

woops!!

today's top news of a leaked, er, government report brings :

"Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the U.K.," said the report, a copy of which was made available by a foreign intelligence service and was not disputed by four senior British officials who were asked about it.

mirth!!

I sometimes support minority causes, but it looks like there are only 2 people left in the country who deny the bleeding obvious.

Yes, twisted logic. Hah, being accused by Tone of playing into the hands of the terrorists. No wait - isn't he using twisted logic himself to defend his weird stance? And haven't the images from Guantanamo become iconic now?

Blair should go and hide in a wee hole like Saddam did, or go claim asylum somewhere. Take Reid and "comical ali" Straw with him.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Jul 2005, 13:37

correlation does not prove causation, as you well know.

I simply do not accept that ALQ would just have become dormant had we refrained from invading Iraq. The UK would have been attacked at some poin and if not then somewhere else would have. Is that acceptable to you or are you of the view that the UK Government effectively bred and indoctrinated the Terrorists? Should we keep stum from now on unless we rile them, you know, like the 3000 in the Twin Towers did.

Back to G8: the speech was not "spin", Blair was the messenger and reported what was agreed, no more no less. His achievement was getting poverty on the agenda.

Tell us;(any one or all of the the 3 amigos) what would you have had Blair say in the speech, what actions should he have stated would happen?

Back to the beach for me.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Jul 2005, 19:23

Porty wrote:correlation does not prove causation, as you well know.

I simply do not accept that ALQ would just have become dormant had we refrained from invading Iraq. The UK would have been attacked at some poin and if not then somewhere else would have. Is that acceptable to you or are you of the view that the UK Government effectively bred and indoctrinated the Terrorists? Should we keep stum from now on unless we rile them, you know, like the 3000 in the Twin Towers did.

Back to G8: the speech was not "spin", Blair was the messenger and reported what was agreed, no more no less. His achievement was getting poverty on the agenda.

Tell us;(any one or all of the the 3 amigos) what would you have had Blair say in the speech, what actions should he have stated would happen?

Back to the beach for me.

Can I answer you like Tony answers questions?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 22 Jul 2005, 10:44

Will Blair follow Bush down this path next?

Judge Dread

07/20/05 "Moscow Times" - - The United States long ago ceased to be anything like a living, thriving republic. But it retained the legal form of a republic, and that counted for something: As long as the legal form still existed, even as a gutted shell, there was hope it might be filled again one day with substance.

But now the very legal structures of the Republic are being dismantled. The principle of arbitrary rule by an autocratic leader is being openly established, through a series of unchallenged executive orders, perverse Justice Department rulings and court decisions by sycophantic judges who defer to power -- not law -- in their determinations. What we are witnessing is the creation of a "commander-in-chief state," where the form and pressure of law no longer apply to the president and his designated agents. The rights of individuals are no longer inalienable, nor are their persons inviolable; all depends on the good will of the Commander, the military autocrat.

President George W. Bush has granted himself the power to declare anyone on earth -- including any U.S. citizen -- an "enemy combatant," for any reason he sees fit. He can render them up for torture, he can imprison them for life, he can even have them killed, all without charges, with no burden of proof, no standards of evidence, no legislative oversight, no appeal, no judicial process whatsoever except those that he himself deigns to construct, with whatever limitations he cares to impose. Nor can he ever be prosecuted for any order he issues, however criminal; in the new American system laid out by Bush's legal minions, the Commander is sacrosanct, beyond the reach of any law or constitution.

This is not hyperbole. It is simply the reality of the United States today. The principle of unrestricted presidential power is now being codified into law and incorporated into the institutional structures of the state, as the web log Deep Blade Journal reports in a compendium of recent outrages against liberty.

For example, last Friday, a panel of federal judges -- including John Roberts, nominated for the Supreme Court this week -- upheld Bush's claim to dispose of "enemy combatants" any way he pleases, The Washington Post reports. In a chilling decision, the judges ruled that the Commander's arbitrarily designated "enemies" are nonpersons: Neither the Geneva Conventions nor American military and domestic law apply to such garbage. Bush is now free to subject anyone he likes to his self-concocted "military tribunal" system, a brutal sham that retired top U.S. military officials have denounced as a "kangaroo court" that tyrants around the world will cite in order to hide their oppression under U.S. precedent.

The kowtowing court ruling ignores the fact that the Geneva Conventions -- which lay down strict guidelines for the handling of any person detained by military forces, regardless of the captive's status -- have been incorporated into the U.S. legal code, Deep Blade points out. They cannot be abrogated by presidential fiat. And anyone who commits a "grave breach" of the Conventions by facilitating the killing, torture or inhuman treatment of detainees (e.g., stripping them of all legal status and subjecting them to rigged tribunals) is subject to the death penalty under U.S. law.

This is why the Bush Faction labored so mightily to advance the absurd fiction that the Geneva Conventions are somehow voluntary -- while simultaneously promulgating the sinister Fuhrerprinzip of unlimited presidential authority. The fiction was a temporary sop to the crumbling legal form of the Republic, a cynical perversion of existing law to keep justice at bay until the Fuhrerprinzip could be firmly established as the new foundation of the state.

It doesn't matter anymore if the president's orders to suspend the Conventions, construct a worldwide gulag, torture captives, spy on Americans, fabricate intelligence and wage aggressive war are illegal under the "quaint" strictures of the old dispensation; the courts, packed with Bushist cadres, are now affirming the new order, the "critical authority" of the Commander, beyond law and morality, on the higher plane of what Bush calls "the path of action."

This phrase -- with its remarkable Mussolinian echoes -- was incorporated into the official "National Security Strategy of the United States," promulgated by Bush in September 2002. That document in turn was drawn largely from a manifesto issued in September 2000 by a Bush Faction group whose members included Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. Their detailed plan envisioned the transformation of America into a militarized state: planting "military footprints" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East, invading Iraq, expanding the nuclear arsenal, massively increasing the defense budget -- and predicating all these "revolutionary" changes on the hopes for "a new Pearl Harbor" that would "catalyze" the lazy American public into supporting their militarist agenda.

This agenda is designed, the group said, to establish "full spectrum dominance" over geopolitical affairs, assuring control of world energy resources and precluding the rise of "any potential global rival" that might threaten the unchecked wealth and privilege of the U.S. elite. The rule of law could only be a hindrance to such a scheme, hence its replacement by the Fuhrerprinzip and the "path of action."

There has been virtually no institutional resistance to this open coup d'etat. It's now clear that the American Establishment -- and a significant portion of the American people -- have given up on the democratic experiment. They no longer wish to govern themselves; they want to be ruled by "strong leaders" who will "do whatever it takes" to protect them from harm and keep them in clover. They have sold their golden birthright of American liberty for a mess of coward's pottage.

Annotations

Court Rules Military Panels to Try Detainees
Washington Post, July 16, 2005

Domination by Detention
Deep Blade Journaly, July 16, 2005

Dark Passage: The Bush Faction's Blueprint for Empire
Excerpt from the book, Empire Burlesque

Ruling Lets U.S. Restart Trials at Guantanamo
New York Times, July 16, 2005

Alberto Gonzales' Tortured Arguments for Reigning Above the Law
LA Weekly, Jan. 14-20, 2005

Torture Treaty Doesn't Bar `Cruel, Inhuman' Tactics, Gonzales Says
Knight-Ridder, Jan. 26, 2005

Bush Has Widened Authority of CIA to Kill Terrorists
New York Times, Dec. 15, 2002

Special Ops Get OK to Initiate Its Own Missions
Washington Times, Jan. 8, 2003

Coward's War in Yemen
Spiked, Nov. 11, 2002

Drones of Death
The Guardian, Nov. 6, 2002

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 22 Jul 2005, 10:48

From the US

ARE YOU AN AMERICAN

Questionnaire

1. You decide that the relationship with your partner is over. How do you
break the news you are leaving?

(a) Leave a tearful note on the table and slip quietly away
(b) Calmly discuss the reasons with your partner for your decision
(c) Attack them with a chair in front of a rabble of cheering pumped-up
inbreds on national television.

2. You and your mates decide to have a game of football in the park. What
do you need to take?
(a) A ball
(b) A ball and 2 coats
(c) A ball 50 crash helmets, 4 tons of body armour, 20 cheerleaders, a
marching sousaphone band with a grand piano on a trolley, and a team of
orthopaedic surgeons specialising in spinal injuries.

3. You are driving along a country road when you accidentally run over a
rabbit. What do you do?
(a) Stop and see how badly injured it is, taking it to a vet if it is still
alive
(b) Carry on driving, but hope it is still alive, or if not, that it died
quickly
(c) Strap it across the bonnet of your car and drive home hollering,
whooping and throwing empty Budweiser cans out of the window.

4. You wake up in the morning with a stiff neck after sleeping in an
awkward position. What do you do?
(a) Ignore it. It will probably loosen up as the day progresses
(b) Take a couple of aspirins and get on with things.
(c) Take yourself to a prostitute-addicted TV evangelist faith healer in an
ill-fitting wig, who will lay his hands on your head, whilst screaming
about the devil in front of an audience.

5. What do you have for breakfast?
(a) A bowl of Cornflakes, slice of toast and a mug of tea
(b) Glass of orange juice, croissant and a cup of coffee
(c) A bag of donuts with ice cream, a 32 ounce steak with six eggs sunny
side-up, fifteen pancakes with maple syrup, ten waffles, five corn dogs and
a diet root beer.

6. You and your partner decide to take the plunge and get married. What
sort of ceremony do you have?
(a) A quiet party with a few friends in a registry office
(b) A church service followed by a traditional reception at a hotel
(c) A minute long mockery at a 24 hour drive-through chapel in Las Vegas,
presided over by a transvestite vicar dressed as Elvis.

7. Your 14-year-old son is going through a difficult phase, becoming
disruptive at school and reclusive at home. What do you do?
(a) Don't worry. Its just a phase and will pass.
(b) Encourage him to get out more, get involved in team sports or join a
youth club.
(c) Take him to an armoury and buy him an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons
and enough ammunition to slaughter a small town.

8. You fancy a night in watching something funny on TV. What kind of comedy
do you choose?
(a) A sitcom like Fawlty Towers or Father Ted
(b) A sketch show like the Two Ronnies or the Fast show
(c) A thinly disguised morality play set in a massive lounge where the
audience whoop for ten minutes every time an overpaid actor with a
superglued grin on his face makes an entrance to deliver a lightweight
wisecrack.

9. Whilst getting ready for bed, you stub your toe on your wife's dressing
table. What do you do?
(a) Shout and swear a bit, after all, it did hurt
(b) Make a mental note to move the table so it doesn't happen again
(c) Immediately call a hotshot lawyer with an uptown reputation, and sue
your wife's ass.

10. You are responsible for the USA's presidential electoral process. Do
you:
(a) Count all votes and declare a winner
(b) Count all votes and declare a winner
(c) Let the press declare who's won before the votes are counted; then
count only the votes which have been handed in by a deadline whilst not
checking if Bud, the hillbilly sheriff of nowheres-ville, has left several
thousand votes in the trunk of his Chevy 'by mistake', then force a recount
of only some of the votes within just one state and allow only 12 seconds
for the recount to take place; then be amazed that the recount hasn't
finished by the deadline and increase the deadline by another 3.2 seconds;
then ignore all votes and let 4 judges decide the result, making sure the
judges all support the same candidate; then ponce around the world telling
other countries how to run their own elections.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jul 2005, 18:31

Dadaist wrote:Sir, I demand satisfaction!

Dadaist; I know you think I'm great but you have to recognise that certain things are beyond me.

Back to Topic:

Bernard Ebbers is a convicted criminal who perpetrated possibly the biggest fraud in history. He is scum. Tony Blair has just been re-elected as PM for the second time. And as far as I am aware has not been charged with any offence. You think he is scum but you are in the minority, get over it. Innocent until found guilty and he has actually been exonerated by 4 inquiries.

I sought to establish, using electroal data that not only has he made his party electable (and I accept this had a lot to with the Tories) he has also made it re-electable.. I achieved that objective, even Gemini admitted it.

I called dc an apologist for the terrorists and I went too far. I publcally admitted my mistake and there is not a lot of that on POL. dc has forgiven me privately. Had I called her a terrorist sympathiser, i do not think redemption would have been available

My list of Blair's achievements was not supposed to be comprehensive, it was designed to lure you into a debate. I caught a number of other fish whilst I was at it and overall i am quite pleased. On reflection I ought to have added his overseeing of the Irish peace agreement as possibly the only example of a non-violent solution to a terrorist problem.

It was Steve Redgrave who highlighted Cherie's Olympic assistance, not me.

Turning to the question of mass murderer's. Am I correct in thinking that Socialism, in its most virulent form, has produced the biggest mass murderer's in history? (Trial and conviction wasn't available as they were dictators)

One more question about Socialism. In the many places where it has been Government policy , has it ever produced and sustained a happy, free, healthy and economially balanced Country?

Are you confusing "peace dissenters" with "reality dissenters"?

Finally, are you, like Gemini, ashamed to be British?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Jul 2005, 19:04

Can I answer you like Tony Blair?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jul 2005, 20:15

No. Its not appropriate.
And please don't cut any articles out of The Guardian either or paste any links from a third party. I've told you what I think. Now you have a go.

Oh and please don't use the TB G8 style. That wasn't him talking.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Jul 2005, 20:41

Porty wrote:No. Its not appropriate.
And please don't cut any articles out of The Guardian either or paste any links from a third party. I've told you what I think. Now you have a go.

Oh and please don't use the TB G8 style. That wasn't him talking.

Why is it not appropriate to answer you like Tony answers questions?

What do you mean it wasn't him talking?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jul 2005, 22:57

Dadaist wrote:What do you mean it wasn't him talking?

I don't mean lterally. I meant he was the messenger who had to deliver a message about a meeting where none of the participants got what they wanted and he had to remian loyal to everyone, even if strongly disagreed with their position. He was a spokesman. There was no way he could talk on behalf of himself.

Apart from that every Political leader there has ever been is a bare faced liar. They have to be. Which, is why I would like you to answer in your own style.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:00

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:What do you mean it wasn't him talking?
I don't mean lterally. I meant he was the messinger who had to deliver a message about a meeting where none of the participants got what they wanted and he had to remian loyal to everyone, even if strongly disagreed with their position. He was a spokesman for others that's what I mean.

We already know that he's a spokesman for others.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:01

Sorry, I edited before you got a chance.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:03

every Political leader there has ever been is a bare faced liar

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:05

Dadaist wrote:
every Political leader there has ever been is a bare faced liar
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

Answers like Kermit are not really acceptable either.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:10

So you're saying that you don't want me to answer you like Blair because Blair is a liar?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:16

Dadaist wrote:So you're saying that you don't want me to answer you like Blair because Blair is a liar?

Are you saying you didn't know that he is a liar? You must be about the only person in Britain that doesn't. I'm saying that there is no need for you to tell lies or obfuscate the truth like he has too, every leader does. You don't need to as this is only an internet forum. You only have responsibility for yourself just try being yourself for once. Throe the books away and liv a little, take a peek at the Wotrld around you, go on, you can do it.

How come Gemini had not heard of OBL until shock and awe?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:20

Throe the books away and liv a little, take a peek at the Wotrld around you, go on, you can do it.

Ok. Seeya.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:24

You wouldn't dare.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 26 Jul 2005, 23:45

Porty wrote:You wouldn't dare.

Yep, and the heavy mob are holding the coats

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Jul 2005, 08:09

He must have given up on the Tony Blair impersonations.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Jul 2005, 08:35

Porty wrote:He must have given up on the Tony Blair impersonations.

Tough on impersonations, tough on the causes of impersonations.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Jul 2005, 09:44

Dadaist wrote:
Throe the books away and liv a little, take a peek at the Wotrld around you, go on, you can do it.
Ok. Seeya.

My spelling is atrocious.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jul 2005, 01:37

Question of Security tonight on BBC 1, member of the audience says "Janet Daly and Tony Blair must be the only two people in the Country that don't believe the Iraq invasion is the reason for the London bombings"

Every panel member then came forward and said count me with Tony and Janet. I have never seen a unanimous panel on Question Time or Question of Security.

What a sorry bunch the Iraqi excusers are.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Jul 2005, 08:40

Porty wrote:count me with Tony and Janet.

That sounds like the title of a primary school maths book!

What's next - "invade me with Tony and George?"

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 29 Jul 2005, 08:50

from the Guardian:
Shahzad Tanweer, the 22-year-old son of a Pakistani-born affluent businessman, turned to Islam, the religion of his birth, a few years ago. The transformation was gradual, but then his relentless reading of the Quran and daily prayers became almost an obsession, his friends told The Associated Press. He became withdrawn and increasingly angry over the war in Iraq, according to those who knew him best.

The U.S.-led war was what likely drove him to blow himself up on a subway train last week, said his friends.

While they're the strangest set of suicide bombers I've read about, those that know them seem to think that was their motivation. Of course, I defer to Janet and Tony's mind reading skills.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 29 Jul 2005, 09:22

I am of the opinion that the Iraq war has exacerbated the 'terrorist situation' but anyone who who thinks this is the sole cause is living in cloud cookoo land (or not listening/reading all the OBL statements).

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jul 2005, 11:20

xxxx wrote:
from the Guardian:
Shahzad Tanweer, the 22-year-old son of a Pakistani-born affluent businessman, turned to Islam, the religion of his birth, a few years ago. The transformation was gradual, but then his relentless reading of the Quran and daily prayers became almost an obsession, his friends told The Associated Press. He became withdrawn and increasingly angry over the war in Iraq, according to those who knew him best.

The U.S.-led war was what likely drove him to blow himself up on a subway train last week, said his friends.
While they're the strangest set of suicide bombers I've read about, those that know them seem to think that was their motivation. Of course, I defer to Janet and Tony's mind reading skills.

I must bow to the objectiv opinion of this affluent father and the so called friends. He must have been sorely tempted to say:

"My son/friend was a murderous scumbag who cared not a jot for others lives. I am disgusted to have nurtured this filth in my home. he has brought shame to his family for generations to come and ruined hundreds of other families. I am ashamed that Shazad will be remembered along with the likes of Robert Black, Fred West, Harold Shipman and all of the other sickos that have murdered their fellow human beings. I am grateful to those Britains who are prepared to swallow that he wouldn't have done it unless Britian invaded Iraq. If only everyone read The Guardian"

Give me a break

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jul 2005, 11:21

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:count me with Tony and Janet.
That sounds like the title of a primary school maths book!

What's next - "invade me with Tony and George?"

I'm just the messenger.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 29 Jul 2005, 11:35

Give me a break

You seem incensed that people link the bombings with iraq, all I point out is that those who knew the bombers did this too and would probably know better than anyone else.
You repeatedly confuse the question 'why did they do it' with 'what is the justification for doing it'.
They curiously neglected to explain themselves so noone can answer the first and there is no valid answer to the second. You seem to think pondering the first attempts to make a case for the second.
As for your imagining of what the father should 've said regarding lone psycopaths and guardian readers, I don't really follow that at all, or see what it has to do with the point discussed.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jul 2005, 11:51

Here is one I made earlier.

Im not incensed but i will not accept possibility as an excuse.

I only mention Shipman et al as they were murderers too. Are we having specific categories now?

dccairns wrote:
dccairns wrote: I wonder why? Is it not possible that the war on Iraq has fuelled fanatics' hatred of the west and exacerbated the situation?
Not only is it possible, it is likely. However, it is also almost certain (assumption) that GB would have been a target of AL Q sooner or later, unless you are in a position to confirm otherwise? It is also every bit as likely that that potential terrorists were imbued by the success of 9/11 and a chance for "glory" became more realistic and helped recruitment.

dccairns wrote: The truth is that we yet don't know that the UK involvement in military action in Iraq provoked this attack on London but on the other had we don't know that it didn't.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 29 Jul 2005, 11:53

Porty wrote:Here is one I made earlier.

Im not incensed but i will not accept possibility as an excuse.

That was my point, who is asking you to?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jul 2005, 11:55

xxxx wrote:
Porty wrote:Here is one I made earlier.

Im not incensed but i will not accept possibility as an excuse.

That was my point, who is asking you to?

The murderers father, for one.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 29 Jul 2005, 12:08

Porty wrote:
xxxx wrote:
Porty wrote:Here is one I made earlier.

Im not incensed but i will not accept possibility as an excuse.

That was my point, who is asking you to?
The murderers father, for one.

Did he ask you personally? He made no statement in the article I quoted. I am unaware of his views on the matter, however his uncle said:

"He was proud to be British. If our family had thought he had been involved in any fanatical groups, we would have put a stop to it. There is no explanation I can come up with for why he did this. Our lives have been shattered."

He added: "Obviously radical groups have been coming round who import these sorts of extreme ideas into a community. We want to get to the bottom of that. We want to find out how we can stop this happening to other people's sons."

That was from the mail 13th july

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Jul 2005, 12:13

I have no problem with that quote, especially:

"There is no explanation I can come up with for why he did this."

He didn't ask me personally, i'm just making sure he doesn't. There are many people, some of them here, that are quite prepared to infer Iraq as being the reason. I accept it has not helped, but argue that not invading Iraq did not buy us immunity from attack.