It is really frightening that since the beginning of humanity, a few people have the right to life or death on billions of other individuals
General / Off-Topic Blair, Iraq, War.
- Thread starter Surfinjo
- Start date
verminstar
Banned
Neither the two, Blair or Bush, were directly responsible for those wars although both played their parts well, they really weren't very well informed about their motives which, deep down, they might actually have believed the stories they were told. Those directly responsible will never stand trial...chances are nobody even knows their names and that includes B and B who can only act on the information they are given.
But by all means, swing them from the hanging tree...just do so knowing yer merely swinging a scapegoat although both men deserve far worse for crimes that were never reported, and which they were directly guilty off. In this age of political correctness, they will never actually get what they deserve anyway, and will still end up sipping pina coladas on a carribbean tax haven after the dust settles anyway ^^
But by all means, swing them from the hanging tree...just do so knowing yer merely swinging a scapegoat although both men deserve far worse for crimes that were never reported, and which they were directly guilty off. In this age of political correctness, they will never actually get what they deserve anyway, and will still end up sipping pina coladas on a carribbean tax haven after the dust settles anyway ^^
No doubt.
But since the US has decided it won't recognise the War Crimes Court, the International court, or the Geneva Convention, there's little chance of that.
I must be in the minority, because i don't think Blair should face war crimes charges.
Me too. Skip the show-pony trial and just execute him.
Will never happen of course
What war crime has he commited ? none, it was Thatcher who committed a war crime when she ordered the Belgrano sinking whilst it was outside the exclusion zone, perhaps Blair, maybe, just maybe should face corruption charges regarding Iraq, but if i'm being honest i don't think he should based on the current evidence. I mean our troops were not ordered to kill innocent Iraqis, they were fighting terrorists, and if you think Blair sent our troops into a futile war or battle for some shady reason, then maybe you should be advocating to re write history and call Churchil a war criminal after the market garden operation that cost so many lives, but you won't call those deaths in vain, and i won't call our losses in Iraq pointless either, we should have more respect than that, our troops were fighting the bad guys in 1939-45 and they were fighting bad guys from 2001 in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hate that i'm in such a minority amongst the left these days, but it's all a matter of principle. Additional note: The only thing that would convince me to want Blair charged with anything (not war crimes) would be genuine proof thast HE, Tony Blair (not Cheney or Rumsfeld, we allready know about them) dirctly based his decision over oil/money interests, that proof does not exist on the UK side.
Last edited:
If words are not used correctly they lose their impact and it becomes much harder to keep the truth healthy. Terrorists are people who attack soft targets with the intent of inspiring fear in a civilian population in the hope that population brings pressure on their leaders to act in some way which help the terrorists goals.
Iraq had nothing at all do with terrorism, and the people who attacked Westerners there were insurgents, not terrorists. They mainly hit military assets or Western attempts to rebuild infrastructure related to Iraqi oil production. None of what they did was an attempt to create a certain political climate, it was an attempt to make staying more costly and expensive than leaving.
I'm simply not in agreement with you, i understand what you are saying, but i'm not going to subscribe to it, i guess this is one of those things where a person has a different outlook, mine happens to be the one in the minority.
Last edited:
To those who take issue with charging Blair with War crimes, using any justification, that is your right. We must each be prepared to defend dissenters, even when we feel very strongly against their case.
And this is a discussion so I for one and more than please that some have spoken up.
There is no evidence that Hitler nor any of his cabinet directly committed many war crimes. No evidence any of them ever shot anyone. No evidence any of them ever so much as closed one gas chamber door. The evidence they were even aware of it is scant to say the least.
But all those surviving were tried and many were executed. Others imprisoned and humiliated.
They were found guilty because of their intent and that they recklessly ordered what subsequently happened.
Blair lied to Parliament and to the country, and his lies were even quoted by the Americans to the American people.
Blair and his cabinet ordered an illegal invasion. Illegal because it was justified with lies.Illegal because it cause unnecessary civilian deaths, even if the original lies had not been told, it was badly planned. They cause the deaths of soldiers and the consequent deaths of civilians because troops were poorly equipped and given inaccurate information.
More, the detention and torture of civilians and military was a war crime.
The acquiescence with Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a continuing war crime. The Americans may claim immunity since they have effectively disavowed the Geneva Convention. The UK has not.
So yes there is a strong case to be made for war crimes against Blair and his cabinet.
And like all criminal action, is all the more important since it must set an example that war crimes will always be prosecuted.
And this is a discussion so I for one and more than please that some have spoken up.
There is no evidence that Hitler nor any of his cabinet directly committed many war crimes. No evidence any of them ever shot anyone. No evidence any of them ever so much as closed one gas chamber door. The evidence they were even aware of it is scant to say the least.
But all those surviving were tried and many were executed. Others imprisoned and humiliated.
They were found guilty because of their intent and that they recklessly ordered what subsequently happened.
Blair lied to Parliament and to the country, and his lies were even quoted by the Americans to the American people.
Blair and his cabinet ordered an illegal invasion. Illegal because it was justified with lies.Illegal because it cause unnecessary civilian deaths, even if the original lies had not been told, it was badly planned. They cause the deaths of soldiers and the consequent deaths of civilians because troops were poorly equipped and given inaccurate information.
More, the detention and torture of civilians and military was a war crime.
The acquiescence with Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a continuing war crime. The Americans may claim immunity since they have effectively disavowed the Geneva Convention. The UK has not.
So yes there is a strong case to be made for war crimes against Blair and his cabinet.
And like all criminal action, is all the more important since it must set an example that war crimes will always be prosecuted.
Last edited:
Don't forget Carl Rove and Cheney.
Last edited:
Still not in agreement folks, i just don't see any evidence of War crimes, and backward as it may seem to you, i still see justification for the war itself, but if Blair deliberately lied to cabinet and the houses and the people to go to this war (be it just or unjust), then i concede he should face corruption charges. but i am very concerned that you feel he is a war criminal, the comparisons to hitler are actually disgusting and offensive to the victims of persecution and war crimes. Surfinjo, i'm happy you feel the need to defend "dissenters" as you call us, but in all honesty i have to ask, do you really think that Tony Blair intended to kill Iraqi civillians ? do you really think he ordered torture ? And do you really think that the comparison with hitler is reasonable ? It was war, civillians died, if it were up to you Churchil would need to have been on trial, Truman for sure, and every Israeli PM ever (i bet i'm on the opposite side to you on a lot of things). No, no way should Blair have to enndure the war criminal title, it would be an utter disgrace, as for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Kissinger from another era) that's a debate that i think we could agree on, with the exepttion of Bush who was probably. a clueless moron, those people are perhaps war criminals (torture tactics and oil money). along with the few British and American troops who tortured Iraqis. (torture), we have a better idea about them than we do about Bush and Blair. Also i'd like to clear something up, i'm not naive, i know that Blair may be a criminal, just not a war criminal.
There was a war that was conducted illegally.
Hussein was no threat to the West at the time. He had absolutely no weapons of real importance. He wasn't involved in any terrorist activity whatsoever. And was pretty much contained within his own borders. I can't think of anything else that would justify an invasion of a foreign country personally.
Do you not think the hundreds of thousands dead and wounded in the invasion are victims of persecution and war crimes? For what reason did so many have to die? Was it just an accident? "Oops, sorry we wiped out 5% of your population. We won't do it again."
If the Nuremburg trial standards were applied Bush and Blair would face execution, along with several members of their cabinet and even some newspaper editors and proprietors (The Daily Mail and Sun newspapers as well as the Fox News channel propaganda attacks on Muslims bears a resemblance to the activities of Julius Streicher who was executed for crimes against humanity).
Blair was not only complicit in the lies used for the persecution and invasion of Muslim countries, but he was also complicit in handing prisoners over to the USA even though he knew full well about their concentration and torture camp at Guantanamo Bay. The horrors of what have gone on their boggle the mind.
Last edited:
"Britain's war leader is quoted during the First World War as saying: "Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...98/Germans-call-Churchill-a-war-criminal.html
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/
Let's face it, that genocidal racist (Churchill) should have been tried for war crimes as well, but we don't hold our own "elite" accountable for their actions. That would be uncivilised.
Last edited:
All i'm hearing here is people calling the act of war itself to be a war crime, it's not. That's a ridiculous idea, if Hitler had merely started the war he would not have been considered an evil war criminal, it's how the war was conducted that meant he was a war criminal, and i don't believe British soldiers were rounding up entire Muslim populations for the torture chambers and executions (there were some incidents where military men should be put on war crimes trials). So no, still not buying the war crimes argument, not one bit, and i'll even go a step further and justify the war itself.....Saddam gassed Kurds, Saddam murdered Kurds, Saddam murdered non Kurdish opponents, Saddam was one of several Muslim leaders threatening to destroy Israel, Saddam also used chemical weapons against the Iranians, he was not co operating fully, he was dangerous, he should have been finished off in 91, but we let the Kurds and other Iraqis suffer for another decade, they were grateful when we took out Saddam in 03, then their tribal religious kicked in and they allowed the remnants of the republican guard and terrorists from Syria and Iran to destroy the reconstruction efforts, in fact if not for Islam there would be peace in Iraq now, just as there would be in Israel without the hard case religious conservatism on both sides of that argument, i don't blame the west for the aftermath of Iraq 03, i blame the bad guys, the religious nutjobs, and petty tribes, the same can be said of Afghanistan, these people are not really victims of western aggression against Islam, they are victims of Islam itself, and by the way didn't blair protect Muslims with the Kosovo intervention ? , he helped sierra leone, he helped the NI peace process, but Iraq goes wrong annd suddenly he's an anti Muslim war criminal ?.....no thanks, i'm not going to buy it.
Last edited:
This ^^ +1
I have stated most of the above before in this thread.
You don't send 400 UN weapons inspectors in to a country, if you don't think it is a threat.
You really should look up Operation Phantom Fury and also the use of white phosphorous.
I can see where you got your name, but you're extremely wrong about this. This situation that led to this (and indeed the rest of the wars in the Middle East) are political in nature, not religious. Islam was and still is a red herring. Only 20% of the earths Muslims live in the Middle East and North Africa, yet that's where all the violence is concentrated. And it's pure coincidence that this is also where most of the oil which has been driving the Western economies since 1950 has been drilled... If you want to stick with the "Islam is evil" line that's ok, but the science is against you.
Back in 2003 Bush had an election looming, a post 9/11 election, and no Osama Bin Laden to show the American public. Something had to do be done... That is not sufficient reason to destabilize the world and kill thousands of people.
You could blame the Brits and Europe and the USA after Lawrence of Arabia? He united the tribes to fight the Germans, but then the rest of the world, went back on Lawrences deal. The oil states have been flip flopping between the East and West, since oil was discovered there.
Perhaps. But the weapons inspectors didn't find anything. They had full access to almost every part of Iraq, at almost a moments notice. The smallest delay by the Iraqis and they complained to the UN, followed by every government from Israel to the UK to the US and Australia bellowing about retribution.
Yet still they found nothing.
So, Blair and Bush invented the evidence. Blair presented it to Parliament who accepted it. Blair's presentation was widely quoted in the USA and elsewhere, at the time.
The world if full of bad governments. Many quite aggressive to their neighbours. (Though frankly, any government threatening Israel can't be taken seriously. Israel is easily powerful enough to deflect any such threat).
Saddam was undoubtedly a tyrant but again, the world is full of tyrants. You don't get rid of them by killing the very people they are persecuting.
The biggest problem here will be if the events which followed become more important than the war itself.
It would be a handy defence for Blair to act contrite over the post war consequences.