Is Tony Blair a war criminal?

[Happy Face 29]

anything that attempts to show we aren't a pushover for terrorists and are prepared to stand up to the real scumbags of the world is OK by me.

 

Which Iraqi terrorists have been a threat to the UK?

[Park Life 70]

http://www.guardian....leveson-inquiry

 

It seems Tony Blair struggles to go anywhere in Britain without being subject to cries of, "war criminal!" from angry white middle-class people.

 

What I want to know is, do YOU believe that Tony Blair is a war criminal, and if so, can you please give an example of a war crime that he is directly responsible for?

 

War criminal???!!!

 

He is total fucking dark side you clown.

 

Converted to catholicism after leaving power. Considered a jesuit warrior of babylon and puppet of the mystery schools (Horus branch) for the cleansing of europe of peoples freedoms and arch mentor behind the new world order (chippenham branch).

Edited May 29, 2012 by Park Life

[LeazesMag 0]

Which Iraqi terrorists have been a threat to the UK?

 

Iraqi ?

[Park Life 70]

Exodus 32:28: The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.

 

9/11, 2001: about 3000 people died. It was the namby-pamby ex-student al qaeda benefit dodging bastards in the planes that did it.

 

They sacrificed their air miles tbf.

[Happy Face 29]

Iraqi ?

 

Yes, from Iraq...the country Blair invaded to show the terrorists we weren't a soft touch.

[luckyluke 1]

All's fair in love and war.

[LeazesMag 0]

Yes, from Iraq...the country Blair invaded to show the terrorists we weren't a soft touch.

 

they invaded Kuwait in 1990, should have been finished the first time, that wasn't Blair's fault. The UN not sanctioning anything only means they are useless - should we have let Saddam carry on ? Who is the real scumbag ?

[LeazesMag 0]

All's fair in love and war.

 

[Happy Face 29]

they invaded Kuwait in 1990, should have been finished the first time, that wasn't Blair's fault. The UN not sanctioning anything only means they are useless - should we have let Saddam carry on ? Who is the real scumbag ?

 

Security Council resolution 678 was much clearer in 1990, it empowered states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of Kuwait.

 

You seem to have jumped away from one justification to another though, what about those terrorists? Should Cameron invade Paraguay to keep the Mexican drug wars at bay?

[LeazesMag 0]

Security Council resolution 678 was much clearer in 1990, it empowered states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of Kuwait.

 

You seem to have jumped away from one justification to another though, what about those terrorists? Should Cameron invade Paraguay to keep the Mexican drug wars at bay?

 

we can't police the world single handed can we ? But that is supposed to be one of the things the UN decides, as it is, its a waste of time, nothing but a PC correct bunch of namby pamby freeloaders looking after the own self interests so why take any notice of anything they say, when you know who the real scumbags are ?

 

Which goes back full circle to ridding the world of Saddam........we know there are others, but Blair whatever his faults is not in the same league.

[Happy Face 29]

So Blair was right to go into Iraq in 2003 because Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, not because of any terrorist threat since then?

 

Should we go into Syria now?

[LeazesMag 0]

So Blair was right to go into Iraq in 2003 because Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, not because of any terrorist threat since then?

 

Should we go into Syria now?

 

somebody had to rid the world of Saddam, if it had been up to the UN then Saddam would still be running Iraq. How long should the world allow Syria to carry on as it is [and other countries] ? The answer to that is how long is a piece of string, it doesn't mean anyone deciding to say "fuck the UN" should be castigated for it, the reverse should be true.

 

They should have hunted down and shot other scumbags over the years too, starting with the likes of McGuinness and Adams. What is wrong about that, if they had ?

Edited May 29, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

So you see Blair as a vigilante, the sort who takes it upon himself to kill a convicted paedophile released from jail early, despite the namby pamby law of the land, he's the rain that's come to wipe the scum off the streets. Travis Bickle Blair.

 

That's a yes from Leazes then KSA

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Yes, from Iraq...the country Blair invaded to show the terrorists we weren't a soft touch.

 

Did Blair claim that was the reason for invading Iraq? Or do you just like arguing with LM because you think you can run rings around him?

 

In an ironic twist, YOU still have not answered MY simple question at the top of the page. What are the parallels between the Sabrina massacre and the deaths during the initial invasion of Iraq, other than a similar figure of approximated deaths?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[LeazesMag 0]

Did Blair claim that was the reason for invading Iraq? Or do you just like arguing with LM because you think you can run rings around him?

 

In an ironic twist, YOU still have not answered MY simple question about the top of the page. What are the parallels between the Sabrina massacre and the deaths during the initial invasion of Iraq, other than a similar figure of approximated deaths?

 

but he can't

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

HF posting style =

 

Copy and paste 1000+ word article from Salon.com or Juan Cole, without a link and with no reference to the author. Offer no context as to what you actually think about the points raised in the article. Possibly insert graph.

[ewerk 26738]

Leazes, do you think that the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers was a reasonable price to pay to get rid of Saddam?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Leazes, do you think that the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers was a reasonable price to pay to get rid of Saddam?

 

I take it they were sent to Iraq against their will?

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, do you think that the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers was a reasonable price to pay to get rid of Saddam?

 

do you think the deaths of x amount of innocent Irish, and British, civilians was a reasonable price to pay to get the Army out of Northern Ireland ?

Edited May 29, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

Did Blair claim that was the reason for invading Iraq? Or do you just like arguing with LM because you think you can run rings around him?

 

In an ironic twist, YOU still have not answered MY simple question at the top of the page. What are the parallels between the Sabrina massacre and the deaths during the initial invasion of Iraq, other than a similar figure of approximated deaths?

 

No Leazes claimed that. Blair claims he was sure there were WMD.

 

I never brought up Srebrenica. I was (as you say) only following up the reference to it with a comparison of the number of deaths caused.

 

There's lots of different war crimes in lots of different circumstances and with lots of different justifications provided by those responsible, the ultimate bottom line is the amount of suffering it causes though. Best intentions is no defence for the vigilante....who kills a paediatrician.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

No Leazes claimed that. Blair claims he was sure there were WMD.

 

I never brought up Srebrenica. I was (as you say) only following up the reference to it with a comparison of the number of deaths caused.

 

There's lots of different war crimes in lots of different circumstances and with lots of different justifications provided by those responsible, the ultimate bottom line is the amount of suffering it causes though. Best intentions is no defence for the vigilante....who kills a paediatrician.

 

In his story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson famously shows the dark side of humanity. The respectable and kind Dr. Jekyll devises a potion that enables him to bring to the surface his evil core. In Mr. Hyde, with his vile appearance and violent behavior, Jekyll sees that this alter ego “bore the stamp of lower elements in my soul.”

The concept that humanity has a violent and evil core is widespread; it is one of the oldest and most resilient myths about human nature. From historical and philosophical beliefs to current popular and scientific beliefs, the view that a savage and aggressive beast is a central part of our nature permeates public and academic perceptions. Given this view, it is a common assumption that if you strip away the veneer of civilization, the restraints of society and culture, you reveal the primeval state of humanity characterized by aggression and violence.

While there are many reasons for the resilience of this myth, the most powerful one is the simple fact that humans today can and do engage in extreme levels of violence and aggression. If you read the newspaper, visit online news sites or turn on the television, you are guaranteed to come across some evidence of humans behaving violently toward other humans. While many animals aggressively hunt, capture, and eat prey, it is relatively rare for most animals to engage in intense, lethal aggression with members of their own species.

Many social mammals display some intraspecific (within the same species) aggression and violence, sometimes resulting in death. A male lion might seriously injure another male lion in a fight over access to a pride of females, two rams might butt heads until one of them staggers away seriously hurt, or a male baboon might repeatedly attack a female in his group, wounding her and injuring her infant. However, these events, while aggressive and violent, are not the main ways in which the individuals in these species interact. For the most part, death of opponents in these cases is neither the premeditated goal nor the outcome of the behavior. So, while intraspecific violence occurs, most species do not exhibit extreme aggression regularly and methodically. Humans are the only species that practice premeditated homicide and full-out war. That humans can, and do, participate in aggression and violence in ways that most other animals do not (and cannot) has led many to theorize that this aggression, this inner beast or demon, our Mr. Hyde, is part of human evolutionary heritage.

 

[Happy Face 29]

HF posting style =

 

Copy and paste 1000+ word article from Salon.com or Juan Cole, without a link and with no reference to the author. Offer no context as to what you actually think about the points raised in the article.

 

When I'm on my phone, that's spot on aye.

 

Not that I've posted owt by Cole in months. Very little from GG.

[LeazesMag 0]

No Leazes claimed that . Blair claims he was sure there were WMD.

 

I never brought up Srebrenica. I was (as you say) only following up the reference to it with a comparison of the number of deaths caused.

 

There's lots of different war crimes in lots of different circumstances and with lots of different justifications provided by those responsible, the ultimate bottom line is the amount of suffering it causes though. Best intentions is no defence for the vigilante....who kills a paediatrician.

 

no I didn't. I said that it should have been finished the first time and it wasn't Blair's fault that it wasn't. As for WMD, as he had already gassed his own people, would you say he would not do it again and develop that technology further ? He had been flouting the terms of the original ceasefire for years, that alone is enough to go in and finish what should have been all over in 1990, the first time round.

 

Ideally, the UN should have sanctioned the removal of Saddam as a body which is what they are supposed to be there for [/laughs]

Edited May 29, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

In his story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson famously shows the dark side of humanity. The respectable and kind Dr. Jekyll devises a potion that enables him to bring to the surface his evil core. In Mr. Hyde, with his vile appearance and violent behavior, Jekyll sees that this alter ego “bore the stamp of lower elements in my soul.”

The concept that humanity has a violent and evil core is widespread; it is one of the oldest and most resilient myths about human nature. From historical and philosophical beliefs to current popular and scientific beliefs, the view that a savage and aggressive beast is a central part of our nature permeates public and academic perceptions. Given this view, it is a common assumption that if you strip away the veneer of civilization, the restraints of society and culture, you reveal the primeval state of humanity characterized by aggression and violence.

While there are many reasons for the resilience of this myth, the most powerful one is the simple fact that humans today can and do engage in extreme levels of violence and aggression. If you read the newspaper, visit online news sites or turn on the television, you are guaranteed to come across some evidence of humans behaving violently toward other humans. While many animals aggressively hunt, capture, and eat prey, it is relatively rare for most animals to engage in intense, lethal aggression with members of their own species.

Many social mammals display some intraspecific (within the same species) aggression and violence, sometimes resulting in death. A male lion might seriously injure another male lion in a fight over access to a pride of females, two rams might butt heads until one of them staggers away seriously hurt, or a male baboon might repeatedly attack a female in his group, wounding her and injuring her infant. However, these events, while aggressive and violent, are not the main ways in which the individuals in these species interact. For the most part, death of opponents in these cases is neither the premeditated goal nor the outcome of the behavior. So, while intraspecific violence occurs, most species do not exhibit extreme aggression regularly and methodically. Humans are the only species that practice premeditated homicide and full-out war. That humans can, and do, participate in aggression and violence in ways that most other animals do not (and cannot) has led many to theorize that this aggression, this inner beast or demon, our Mr. Hyde, is part of human evolutionary heritage.

 

 

When will YOU tire of mimicking Leazes and I, and show us your true self. The mask of the joker is clearly hiding a world of pain.

[Happy Face 29]

whether that makes him a war criminal or not is something I just don't care about either way, anything that attempts to show we aren't a pushover for terrorists and are prepared to stand up to the real scumbags of the world is OK by me.

 

What are you referring to?