Guest Posted 13 July 2005 Posted 13 July 2005 Think its fair to say that blair is guilty, so when will this criminal be punished? 136847[/snapback] Guilty to you, but the Attorney General says not. 136868[/snapback] But is the Attorney General truly independent? I don't pretend to know the legal answers but where was the mandate? Convince me. 137071[/snapback] I thought I'd got the legal article in a journal at home, but can't find the beggar. I'll keep on trawling through.
lush Posted 13 July 2005 Author Posted 13 July 2005 But Thracian, do you think that george is defending the Islamic murderers?Think its fair to say that blair is guilty, so when will this criminal be punished? 136847[/snapback] George says they were "somewhat justifiable". Not ambiguous that. Believes they were in part justified if that is truly what he said. If quoted correctly I could never agree with his argument but I would still defend his right to voice whatever view he likes. The dilution of free speech is a greater attack on our nation and what we stand for than any bomb. There's a BP thread for instance which has attrated nearly 2,000 viewers but less than 300 replies. Is that because people are disinterested, bury their heads in the sand, unable to form a sound opinion or afraid? Free speech (already diluted) is your lifeblood. Best to remember that and defend it. 137070[/snapback] `blair, this is for iraq` was the first words george said as a respect mp. I think its fair to say theres one british mp who thinks more of a foreign countries people than british people. I wonder if this new religious law will stretch to people being guilty of verbally attacking new labour? spose labour could consider themselves a religion too. `BP` thread? Oh yes, aint no one going to stop me believing in free speech, i have many forefathers/mothers that risked their very lives to defend it, and will not disgrace them.
lush Posted 13 July 2005 Author Posted 13 July 2005 Guilty to millions of us (maybe not you, you seem to like illegal war), his employers. 136898[/snapback] Where have I said that? 137076[/snapback] Is he guilty?
Guest Posted 13 July 2005 Posted 13 July 2005 Guilty to millions of us (maybe not you, you seem to like illegal war), his employers. 136898[/snapback] Where have I said that? 137076[/snapback] Is he guilty? 137205[/snapback] Before I answer your question, answer mine.
lush Posted 13 July 2005 Author Posted 13 July 2005 Before I answer your question, answer mine. 137222[/snapback] You havnt.
Guest Posted 13 July 2005 Posted 13 July 2005 Before I answer your question, answer mine. 137222[/snapback] You havnt. 137259[/snapback] Thank you, it does beg the question why on earth you wrote it.... According to the law of this land, Honest Tony is not guilty.
lush Posted 13 July 2005 Author Posted 13 July 2005 Forget the manipulation of the law, do you think hes guilty?
Guest Posted 13 July 2005 Posted 13 July 2005 Forget the manipulation of the law, do you think hes guilty? 137267[/snapback] Christ almighty, NO.
lush Posted 13 July 2005 Author Posted 13 July 2005 Forget the manipulation of the law, do you think hes guilty? 137267[/snapback] Christ almighty, NO. 137474[/snapback] so you DO like an illegal war, and dont gimme that rollax about he hasnt been proved wrong, HE HASNT PROVED HIMSELF TO BE RIGHT, AND HE DOES THAT ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYERS, that makes him wrong, and your an idiot for believing him. How the hell can you justify murdering thousands of innocent people?
Guest Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 so you DO like an illegal war, and dont gimme that rollax about he hasnt been proved wrong, HE HASNT PROVED HIMSELF TO BE RIGHT, AND HE DOES THAT ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYERS, that makes him wrong, and your an idiot for believing him. No, I don't like an illegal war; but the war in Iraq isn't illegal. Ipso facto. You're the idiot for jumping on the anti-Labour/Blair bandwagon with the weakest excuse imaginable. Typical kneejerk reaction from the uninformed. How the hell can you justify murdering thousands of innocent people? 137535[/snapback] There is no justification for murdering innocent people. Most 'civilian casualties' in Iraq have been caused by the extemist indigenous population, not by coalition forces.
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 You're the idiot for jumping on the anti-Labour/Blair bandwagon with the weakest excuse imaginable. There is no justification for murdering innocent people . Most 'civilian casualties' in Iraq have been caused by the extemist indigenous population, not by coalition forces. 137651[/snapback] Isnt the highlighted statement a contradiction Lisa? Your last point is the kind of bullsh!t a politician would say to divert the blame You either agree with the war, which means you agree with murdering innocent people, or you dont?
Guest Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 You're the idiot for jumping on the anti-Labour/Blair bandwagon with the weakest excuse imaginable. There is no justification for murdering innocent people . Most 'civilian casualties' in Iraq have been caused by the extemist indigenous population, not by coalition forces. 137651[/snapback] Isnt the highlighted statement a contradiction Lisa? Your last point is the kind of bullsh!t a politician would say to divert the blame You either agree with the war, which means you agree with murdering innocent people, or you dont? 137717[/snapback] The highlighted statement is not a contradiciton. There is no justification to murdering innocent people. The last point is the truth, deal with it. You're right with your last point; I do either agree or disagree with the war in Iraq. I do take exception to the point that agreeing to the war means that you agree with the concept of murdering people. One of the unfortunate realities of war is that civilians can get caught up in the crossfire. Unless battles are carried out on huge fields like in days of yore, this is always going to be a consequence. Murder is the unlawful, pre-meditated killing of a human being. I think you'll find that 1) there is a legal get out clause in the case of war, and 2) no leader, not in western society, would want to kill a civilian, thus making any casualties not pre-meditated. Similarly, I don't know anyone who does support the war in Iraq that wants to see casualties of any kind, especially civilian deaths.
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 The highlighted statement is not a contradiciton. There is no justification to murdering innocent people. How the hell can i be jumping on the anti-labour/war bandwagon, your weird. The last point is the truth, deal with it. Dont you realise the filthy politician spew you spouted though? I do take exception to the point that agreeing to the war means that you agree with the concept of murdering people. Not murdering people, murdering innocent people, theres a big difference. War means you murder people, not innocence, which is what blair does. blair has no choice but to murder innocent people, and he doesnt mind, NO decent human can agree with that. I do take exception to the point that agreeing to the war means that you agree with the concept of murdering people. Unfortunately you cant have both in this war. You either agree with this war and the muders of innocence, or you dont agree with this war. I hope you`ll behave like a sensible human and disagree with it. 137871[/snapback]
Guest Posted 14 July 2005 Posted 14 July 2005 The highlighted statement is not a contradiciton. There is no justification to murdering innocent people. How the hell can i be jumping on the anti-labour/war bandwagon, your weird. The last point is the truth, deal with it. Dont you realise the filthy politician spew you spouted though? I do take exception to the point that agreeing to the war means that you agree with the concept of murdering people. Not murdering people, murdering innocent people, theres a big difference. War means you murder people, not innocence, which is what blair does. blair has no choice but to murder innocent people, and he doesnt mind, NO decent human can agree with that. I do take exception to the point that agreeing to the war means that you agree with the concept of murdering people. Unfortunately you cant have both in this war. You either agree with this war and the muders of innocence, or you dont agree with this war. I hope you`ll behave like a sensible human and disagree with it. 137871[/snapback] 138022[/snapback] You're a pillock. Firstly, you haven't a clue on how to handle the quote's feature. Then you pick out bits to regurgitate the same crap over and over again with. You make it look like you haven't read a single word I've written, because you've ignored the points which explain the parts you have specifically pulled out. What are you trying to do, keep on repeating the same questions in the vain hope I slip up?
lush Posted 14 July 2005 Author Posted 14 July 2005 Then you pick out bits to regurgitate the same crap over and over again with. You make it look like you haven't read a single word I've written, because you've ignored the points which explain the parts you have specifically pulled out.What are you trying to do, keep on repeating the same questions in the vain hope I slip up? 138274[/snapback] Lisa, sometimes you dont actually answer a question, and so i have to ask again or make the point. You said: You're the idiot for jumping on the anti-Labour/Blair bandwagon with the weakest excuse imaginable. And then you said: There is no justification for murdering innocent people. Lisa, thats a contradiction, because blairs war is all about money, and in the process of claiming that, he has no choice but to murder innocent people. You must also be imorale, because you dont think blair is guilty. Can you explain to me why you think blairs war is good? You said: Most 'civilian casualties' in Iraq have been caused by the extemist indigenous population, not by coalition forces. I dont disagree with that, but its a verbal diversion from the truth, and its the kind of diversion tactics a politician not wanting the finger pointed at him/her would do.
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 Then you pick out bits to regurgitate the same crap over and over again with. You make it look like you haven't read a single word I've written, because you've ignored the points which explain the parts you have specifically pulled out. What are you trying to do, keep on repeating the same questions in the vain hope I slip up? Lisa, sometimes you dont actually answer a question, and so i have to ask again or make the point. I do answer the question posed, if you don't understand the answers, tough poo-poo. You said: You're the idiot for jumping on the anti-Labour/Blair bandwagon with the weakest excuse imaginable.And then you said: There is no justification for murdering innocent people. Lisa, thats a contradiction, because blairs war is all about money, and in the process of claiming that, he has no choice but to murder innocent people. You must also be imorale, because you dont think blair is guilty. Can you explain to me why you think blairs war is good? You still miss the point; please read the definition of murder I posted earlier. You said: Most 'civilian casualties' in Iraq have been caused by the extemist indigenous population, not by coalition forces.I dont disagree with that, but its a verbal diversion from the truth, and its the kind of diversion tactics a politician not wanting the finger pointed at him/her would do. That's a contradiction. If the truth is that insurgents have killed more civilians, how can politicians be using 'diversion tactics'?
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 Can you explain to me why you think blairs war is good? 138316[/snapback] Can you please show me where I've said I think Blair's War is good? Thank you.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 I do answer the question posed, if you don't understand the answers, tough poo-poo. Its certainly tuff poo when you give answers like the 2nd one in this post. You still miss the point; please read the definition of murder I posted earlier. Your going to have to explain it to me, because you make little sense, run on. That's a contradiction. If the truth is that insurgents have killed more civilians, how can politicians be using 'diversion tactics'? Bloody hell They say things like that to divert blame from themselves, INSTEAD of telling us how bad they`ve been, even you can work that out SURELY??? 138392[/snapback]
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 Can you explain to me why you think blairs war is good? 138316[/snapback] Can you please show me where I've said I think Blair's War is good? Thank you. 138394[/snapback] No, do you think blairs war is a good thing, or a bad thing? Why?
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 I do answer the question posed, if you don't understand the answers, tough poo-poo. Its certainly tuff poo when you give answers like the 2nd one in this post. You still miss the point; please read the definition of murder I posted earlier. Your going to have to explain it to me, because you make little sense, run on. That's a contradiction. If the truth is that insurgents have killed more civilians, how can politicians be using 'diversion tactics'? Bloody hell They say things like that to divert blame from themselves, INSTEAD of telling us how bad they`ve been, even you can work that out SURELY??? 138392[/snapback] 138525[/snapback] FFS, I am not explaining things over again. If you don't understand, tough. If the truth is indigenous extremist groups are responsible for the deaths of the majority of their own countrymen, why the hell should British politicians take the blame for it? Many thousands of Iraqis have been killed by supporters of the now deposed Government forces. Surely this is more a case of murder, as people were actively targeted.
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 No, No you won't, or no you can't? do you think blairs war is a good thing, or a bad thing? Why? 138528[/snapback] Firstly, I see it as Bush's war, not Blair's. Secondly, I have my suspicions over Bush's motives, and do think it's oil-related. Al Qaeda launched an 'attack' on the US, not Iraq, yet Bush seemed focused on invading. I don't however think that the governments of Britain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, and the others who have joined this coalition are all driven by the same motives. I do believe that there was a genuine feeling that something had to be done with Saddam Hussein and his regime, but this could, and should have been dealt with back in 1991, or whenever it was. Without that second resolution from the UN there was always going to be a lot of mudslinging, and as much as I'd prefer it to have passed, it wasn't. My own personal opinion is that something needed to be done, however I was, and still am, against war in Iraq. Happy now? If the UN had taken a stronger stance then perhaps circumstances would be more favourable. I think you have a simplistic view of things. Honest Tone didn't wake up one morning and think 'I must go to war in Iraq today'. He is a puppet for the advisors and beaurocrats behind the scenes. As far as the legality of this war, it has been declared as legal, even if the information justification was based on turned out to be incorrect. To say that Blair lied though, when you think about the people behind him who have influence, and of course his 'relationship' with Bush who was going to invade Iraq regardless, have more influence on matters than people care to think about. Prime ministers and presidents are party figureheads, and consequently it's easier to blame them. As for murderers, casulaties of war are not murder victims. Soldiers go into combat, it's their duty. Civilians who get caught up do so by accident; they were in the right place at the wrong time. I cannot believe that Blair, or even Bush, sat in a meeting with the Armed Forces leading men, and briefed them to kill ordinary, innocent people. The fact a lot of fighting against insurgents has taken place in residential areas suggests to me that they are more than happy to use their fellow countrymen as human-shields; surely this is far worse?
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 If the truth is indigenous extremist groups are responsible for the deaths of the majority of their own countrymen, why the hell should British politicians take the blame for it? Many thousands of Iraqis have been killed by supporters of the now deposed Government forces. Surely this is more a case of murder, as people were actively targeted. 138578[/snapback] Whos onabout the innocent murders created by sadams mob No wonder i couldnt understand what the hell your onabout. Yes the indigenous Iraqis who are murdering their own are bad people, and should be shown as such, but does that mean we forget about the murders of innocent people that blair insists on? No, so deal with the threat in hand, sorting that threat (blair) will ease the pain of future sufferes like last thursday. It is ridiculous to get caught up in blairs media wrap of diverting the blame, because that gives him a bigger platform for murder.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 No, No you won't, or no you can't? do you think blairs war is a good thing, or a bad thing? Why? 138528[/snapback] Firstly, I see it as Bush's war, not Blair's. Secondly, I have my suspicions over Bush's motives, and do think it's oil-related. Al Qaeda launched an 'attack' on the US, not Iraq, yet Bush seemed focused on invading. I don't however think that the governments of Britain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, and the others who have joined this coalition are all driven by the same motives. I do believe that there was a genuine feeling that something had to be done with Saddam Hussein and his regime, but this could, and should have been dealt with back in 1991, or whenever it was. My own personal opinion is that something needed to be done, however I was, and still am, against war in Iraq. Happy now? I think you have a simplistic view of things. Honest Tone didn't wake up one morning and think 'I must go to war in Iraq today'. He is a puppet for the advisors and beaurocrats behind the scenes. As far as the legality of this war, it has been declared as legal, even if the information justification was based on turned out to be incorrect. To say that Blair lied though, when you think about the people behind him who have influence, and of course his 'relationship' with Bush who was going to invade Iraq regardless, have more influence on matters than people care to think about. Prime ministers and presidents are party figureheads, and consequently it's easier to blame them. As for murderers, casulaties of war are not murder victims. Soldiers go into combat, it's their duty. Civilians who get caught up do so by accident; they were in the right place at the wrong time. I cannot believe that Blair, or even Bush, sat in a meeting with the Armed Forces leading men, and briefed them to kill ordinary, innocent people. The fact a lot of fighting against insurgents has taken place in residential areas suggests to me that they are more than happy to use their fellow countrymen as human-shields; surely this is far worse? 138588[/snapback] No to both. If it isnt blairs war, why did he tell us it is? Its oil for the coalition, how else is the war going to funded... If theres a genuine feeling to rid sadam, and nothing else, why are we still there? And also, who gave blair the right to decide the future of a foreign country? Your weird lisa, how can you feel something need be done, and be against it at the same time? What logical thinking is that? `honest tone` is an evil dictator that thinks invading a foreign country for finance is a good thing, hes just as bad as sadam and bin laden. TOO THIS DAY, he hasnt shown us a good enough reason to justify he murdering antics. If blair doesnt like the critisim, then he should look elsewhere for work. He works for me and you, and were entitled to slate him when we feel hes murdering innocent people. Yes innocence get caught up and get killed, doesnt that explain to you why its a bad thing to aim a gun in their direction? yes using innocence as shields is bad, how does this make blair look good???? Lisa, they way you speak, is like defence of blair. You create other reasons to explain this war, as if it makes blair look good. Concentrate on blair, and what he is doing, is it justifyable? You say you dont agree with this (blairs) war, so he must be bad.
Guest Posted 15 July 2005 Posted 15 July 2005 No, No you won't, or no you can't? do you think blairs war is a good thing, or a bad thing? Why? 138528[/snapback] Firstly, I see it as Bush's war, not Blair's. Secondly, I have my suspicions over Bush's motives, and do think it's oil-related. Al Qaeda launched an 'attack' on the US, not Iraq, yet Bush seemed focused on invading. I don't however think that the governments of Britain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, and the others who have joined this coalition are all driven by the same motives. I do believe that there was a genuine feeling that something had to be done with Saddam Hussein and his regime, but this could, and should have been dealt with back in 1991, or whenever it was. My own personal opinion is that something needed to be done, however I was, and still am, against war in Iraq. Happy now? I think you have a simplistic view of things. Honest Tone didn't wake up one morning and think 'I must go to war in Iraq today'. He is a puppet for the advisors and beaurocrats behind the scenes. As far as the legality of this war, it has been declared as legal, even if the information justification was based on turned out to be incorrect. To say that Blair lied though, when you think about the people behind him who have influence, and of course his 'relationship' with Bush who was going to invade Iraq regardless, have more influence on matters than people care to think about. Prime ministers and presidents are party figureheads, and consequently it's easier to blame them. As for murderers, casulaties of war are not murder victims. Soldiers go into combat, it's their duty. Civilians who get caught up do so by accident; they were in the right place at the wrong time. I cannot believe that Blair, or even Bush, sat in a meeting with the Armed Forces leading men, and briefed them to kill ordinary, innocent people. The fact a lot of fighting against insurgents has taken place in residential areas suggests to me that they are more than happy to use their fellow countrymen as human-shields; surely this is far worse? 138588[/snapback] No to both. If it isnt blairs war, why did he tell us it is? Its oil for the coalition, how else is the war going to funded... If theres a genuine feeling to rid sadam, and nothing else, why are we still there? And also, who gave blair the right to decide the future of a foreign country? Your weird lisa, how can you feel something need be done, and be against it at the same time? What logical thinking is that? `honest tone` is an evil dictator that thinks invading a foreign country for finance is a good thing, hes just as bad as sadam and bin laden. TOO THIS DAY, he hasnt shown us a good enough reason to justify he murdering antics. If blair doesnt like the critisim, then he should look elsewhere for work. He works for me and you, and were entitled to slate him when we feel hes murdering innocent people. Yes innocence get caught up and get killed, doesnt that explain to you why its a bad thing to aim a gun in their direction? yes using innocence as shields is bad, how does this make blair look good???? Lisa, they way you speak, is like defence of blair. You create other reasons to explain this war, as if it makes blair look good. Concentrate on blair, and what he is doing, is it justifyable? You say you dont agree with this (blairs) war, so he must be bad. 138608[/snapback] Everything has to be black and white, doesn't it. Haven't you heard of 'pragmatism', or 'ambivalence'? I've never said that Blair does look good. Civilians getting killed in areas where there is combat isn't very nice, but it happens. Like I keep saying to you, no head of any civilised state would order the killings of civilians. If you feel so strongly, I suggest you contact a Human Rights lawyer, and seek about getting Blair prosecuted for his war crimes, which you are admanant he's committed. I look forward to reading all about the trial, and when Blair is sent down I will remember you, and think 'how wrong was I? I should have paid more attention to Lush, he really knows what he's talking about'.
lush Posted 15 July 2005 Author Posted 15 July 2005 I've never said that Blair does look good.Civilians getting killed in areas where there is combat isn't very nice, but it happens. Like I keep saying to you, no head of any civilised state would order the killings of civilians. If you feel so strongly, I suggest you contact a Human Rights lawyer, and seek about getting Blair prosecuted for his war crimes, which you are admanant he's committed. I look forward to reading all about the trial, and when Blair is sent down I will remember you, and think 'how wrong was I? I should have paid more attention to Lush, he really knows what he's talking about'. 138613[/snapback] No true, you havnt said that, but THATS THE IMPRESSION YOU GIVE!!! No true, no head of state would order the killings of innocent civilians, but THEY DO WITHOUT ACTUALLY SAYING IT WORD FOR WORD LIKE YOU JUST SAID IT, jeez your so naive. DONT YOU THINK THEY KNOW THEY`LL BE INNOCENT DEATHS FFS? If there were a morale court of law, i`d win. Your imorale if you think blairs morality is unquestionable in his war stance.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.