Tony Blairs booky wook

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Most people are not prepared to forego a forenoon's work to protest at a retired British Prime Minister's book signing.

In other words most people have live's.

It was 8 am on a Saturday :rolleyes:

Were you in work?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Blair invaded another country that was no threat to the UK killing tens of thousands of people. If thats not a crime I don't know what is. Put it in quote marks all you like.

invinciblePRSTV

20Cent wrote: »

Blair invaded another country that was no threat to the UK killing tens of thousands of people. If thats not a crime I don't know what is. Put it in quote marks all you like.

don't bother arguing with the usual suspects on here, it's a waste of time. For ideological reasons these folks choose to demonise the protestors present and casually ignore the subject of the protest.

Laughably these keyboard moaners, who i doubt have ever participated in any kind of political activity, will try and paint themselves as upholders of purist ideals of free speech and all that, but don't be fooled, they are just virulently hostile to any organisation, like the IAWM or PANA, which have links to left wing political parties.

Denerick

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

don't bother arguing with the usual suspects on here, it's a waste of time. For ideological reasons these folks choose to demonise the protestors present and casually ignore the subject of the protest.

Laughably these keyboard moaners, who i doubt have ever participated in any kind of political activity, will try and paint themselves as upholders of purist ideals of free speech and all that, but don't be fooled, they are just virulently hostile to any organisation, like the IAWM or PANA, which have links to left wing political parties.

I take pride in not having sacrificed my intellectual independence by associating with the hive mentality of infantile left wing college groups.

In other words, I am not 'politically active' as I am so riddled by doubt and suspicion of those in positions of political authority that I have too much self respect to join in the cultish whinging and pathetic sophistries of professional protestors.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

I take pride in not having sacrificed my intellectual independence by associating with the hive mentality of infantile left wing college groups.

In other words, I am not 'politically active' as I am so riddled by doubt and suspicion of those in positions of political authority that I have too much self respect to join in the cultish whinging and pathetic sophistries of professional protestors.

Ah for gods sake.

Denerick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ah for gods sake.

If you're going to say anything worthwhile, you might as well say it strongly.

Calm and measured words are for academic essays and politicians.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

Denerick wrote: »

I take pride in not having sacrificed my intellectual independence by associating with the hive mentality of infantile left wing college groups.

Yet you appear to sacrifice your intellectual independence by branding a lot of generalisations and calling names. Which is better?

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is plenty of basis in law UN and British. He won't be convicted or even charged though.

You still haven't given your opinion of him yet. Can't still be irrelevant to the discussion.

Denerick

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yet you appear to sacrifice your intellectual independence by branding a lot of generalisations and calling names. Which is better?

I just do that for shíts and giggles.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

If you're going to say anything worthwhile, you might as well say it strongly.

Calm and measured words are for academic essays and politicians.

And insultingly while you are at it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

Denerick wrote: »

I take pride in not having sacrificed my intellectual independence by associating with the hive mentality of infantile left wing college groups.

In other words, I am not 'politically active' as I am so riddled by doubt and suspicion of those in positions of political authority that I have too much self respect to join in the cultish whinging and pathetic sophistries of professional protestors.

There are other political parties other then left wing ones and indeed there are political organisations which are not Pol. parties of many types. I sincerely doubt you have ever participated in either. So i ask out of interest, outside of your undergrad reading lists, what have you ever done in the field of politics which has given you experience of or qualifies you to make such sweeping generalisations of individuals, groups and parties which plague just about every post you have made on this thread?

Denerick

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

There are other political parties other then left wing ones and indeed there are political organisations which are not Pol. parties of many types. I sincerely doubt you have ever participated in either. So i ask out of interest, outside of your undergrad reading lists, what have you ever done in the field of politics which has given you experience of or qualifies you to make such sweeping generalisations of individuals, groups and parties which plague just about every post you have made on this thread?

I have observed people in real life and people on the internet who are 'politically active'.

Most of the time I think they are rather pathetic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are dismissive of others views of him and give sarcastic replies (blah blah blah) yet don't give your own opinion of him. If you want to comment on other people opinions perhaps you should supply your own.

Sitting on the fence criticising everyone else without playing yourself.
Bit like libertarianism I think!!

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

I have observed people in real life and people on the internet who are 'politically active'.

Most of the time I think they are rather pathetic.

Then why are you here?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

People don't have to be experienced, but it would help if they even had a basic semblance of knowledge about whom they moan about so much. I doubt the poster would know his arse from his elbow when it comes to discussing the parties and organisations that make up the IAWM, smears, digs and false insinuations seem to be the order of the day.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I imagine a Libertarians opinions on PSF would be more amusing then illegitimate.

Denerick wrote: »

I have observed people in real life and people on the internet who are 'politically active'.

Observed eh? given your limited ability to participate in debate here without recourse to using juvenile terms i'm not surprised you 'observed' rather then engaged with the political representatives you clearly despise so much.

Denerick wrote: »

Most of the time I think they are rather pathetic.

Pathetic is a word i also reach for when i read nonsense like below in this thread:

…A small band of retards, Republicans, student twats and thugs….

..In reality this motley assortment of thugs and imbeciles…

…Your post wasn't retarded, but the people protesting were/are….

You can see why i posted to tell people not to bother engaging with such puerile rubbish.

So again i ask whats your knowledge on the Irish left parties? you're quite happy to dish it out. Books, articles, anything really.... i'm interested in how you've come to form such derogative opinions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

invinciblePRSTV

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Isn't it obvious at this stage that they are just all retards & twats? Do keep up Donegal Fella you imbecile.

Btw Denerick if you have time to high five DFs posts then you'll have time to provide that bibliography i requested. I'm waiting....

Denerick

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Isn't it obvious at this stage that they are just all retards & twats? Do keep up Donegal Fella you imbecile.

Btw Denerick if you have time to high five DFs posts then you'll have time to provide that bibliography i requested. I'm waiting....

If I could be persuaded you'd find time to read anything in between shouting 'down with this sort of thing' in public places I would consider it.

invinciblePRSTV

Denerick wrote: »

If I could be persuaded you'd find time to read anything in between shouting 'down with this sort of thing' in public places I would consider it.

Come again ?

Wolfe Tone

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Come again ?

Careful now!

irishconvert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What should we call him then? Is this acceptable: "A prime minister who supported and took his country into an illegal war, based on a pack of lies, which directly and indirectly caused the deaths of 100,000s of people"?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nobody attacked him physically.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree, but the right to civil liberties go hand in hand with everyone being treated the same in the eyes of the law. Why has Tony Blair not faced a court of law for the charge of war criminal? The reason is he is protected and never will. The same for Bush. Their war was based on a pack of lies. People get frustrated when someone like B-liar is above the law and immune to the same rules everyone else must follow.

caseyann

irishconvert wrote: »

You really need to take that blindfold off. Seriously, are you a 6 year old kid who thinks the west can do no wrong?

Biggest wrong west ever did was ever going next to near those countries ever.They should have left them to themselves kept with trading and nothing else( They go in they are war criminals they stay out they are inhumane).And then would be people like you calling them on why they havent gone in to clean up Saddam etc..
One thing i do know is they will never be thanked by the majority over there.

irishconvert

caseyann wrote: »

Biggest wrong west ever did was ever going next to near those countries ever.They should have left them to themselves kept with trading and nothing else( They go in they are war criminals they stay out they are inhumane).And then would be people like you calling them on why they havent gone in to clean up Saddam etc..
One thing i do know is they will never be thanked by the majority over there.

It's funny how they only want to spread democracy and freedom to oil rich countries isn't it?

caseyann

irishconvert wrote: »

It's funny how they only want to spread democracy and freedom to oil rich countries isn't it?

I could say alot of them havent who they gave freedom to and overthrew murderous regimes.
Those countries are more trouble than their worth.
So you are anti USA because why they went in and took out a load of lunatics with guns and still trying to catch another lunatic with a gun?
I dont understand your reasoning.
Would it have been better if Saddam was still in power and let their cells of terrorists carry on?

irishconvert

caseyann wrote: »

I could say alot of them havent who they gave freedom to and overthrew murderous regimes.
Those countries are more trouble than their worth.
So you are anti USA because why they went in and took out a load of lunatics with guns and still trying to catch another lunatic with a gun?
I dont understand your reasoning.
Would it have been better if Saddam was still in power and let their cells of terrorists carry on?

Do you know the US funded Saddam? That they funded the Taliban? The US sets up all these dictators and then when it suits them they "liberate" the country. The Saudi royal family, the biggest dictators in the middle east are supported by the US.

caseyann

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you know the US funded Saddam? That they funded the Taliban? The US sets up all these dictators and then when it suits them they "liberate" the country. The Saudi royal family, the biggest dictators in the middle east are supported by the US.

And?

irishconvert

caseyann wrote: »

And?

If you have to ask :rolleyes:

caseyann

irishconvert wrote: »

If you have to ask :rolleyes:

I am asking again,and that has anything to do with Blair helping to remove them from power because and of going after terrorists because?

20Cent

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just because he hasn't been convicted doesn't mean he's not guilty. Former British Law Lords and the lord chief justice have said the invasion of Iraq was a serious violation of international law and the rule of law. Lord Goldsmith the attorney general at the time laid out the legal basis war and these were not met. UN security council did not authorise the war and it broke the UN charter.
Hardly facile or histrionic.

Your other points about Blair being assaulted by a mob and his freedom of speech/civil liberties being impinged are definitely facile and histrionic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

This has more to do with anti British racism than anything else. I doubt this kind of attacks, or attempted attacks would have been made against a former US head of state for fear of what the secret service would do. These Irish thugs are not afraid of British security because they know they have them over a barrel with all the British post colonial guilt and fear that if anything happens to an Irish protester then they are all in for a whole load of trouble, ie BLACKMAIL from nationalists and republicans and that is why this kind of crap happens.

It's embarrassing.

Nodin

metrovelvet wrote: »

This has more to do with anti British racism than anything else. ..................

Majority there were "anti war" people afaik.

Carlos_Ray

metrovelvet wrote: »

This has more to do with anti British racism than anything else. I doubt this kind of attacks, or attempted attacks would have been made against a former US head of state for fear of what the secret service would do. These Irish thugs are not afraid of British security because they know they have them over a barrel with all the British post colonial guilt and fear that if anything happens to an Irish protester then they are all in for a whole load of trouble, ie BLACKMAIL from nationalists and republicans and that is why this kind of crap happens.

It's embarrassing.

I was one of the "shameful" people who got my book signed by him and I didn't withness any "anti-British" element to the protest. Fact is Tony Blair would get the same (if not more)negative reaction in British cities which is why he cancelled any book signings planned for England.

Its this "post colonial" mindest that you mention that leads people to believe that any Irish protest against a British person is merely "anti-British" and not founded on anything else.

The protests were over his policies towards Iraq, nothing to do with the fact that he is British.

Jeboa Safari

irishconvert wrote: »

It's funny how they only want to spread democracy and freedom to oil rich countries isn't it?

North Korea must have huge oil reserves we don't know about so...

invinciblePRSTV

metrovelvet wrote: »

This has more to do with anti British racism than anything else. I doubt this kind of attacks, or attempted attacks would have been made against a former US head of state for fear of what the secret service would do. These Irish thugs are not afraid of British security because they know they have them over a barrel with all the British post colonial guilt and fear that if anything happens to an Irish protester then they are all in for a whole load of trouble, ie BLACKMAIL from nationalists and republicans and that is why this kind of crap happens.

It's embarrassing.

When Bush Jr. arrived in Ireland to Stormont on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003 and again to Dromoland in 2004 he was met by protests.

Of course a quick google would have told you all this, but no, according to you these anti war protests are actually a smokescreen at blackmail from nationalists & republicans, of course it is how come we didn't see this all along:rolleyes:, those dastardly republicans! I'm embarassed for you tbh.

mewso

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

North Korea must have huge oil reserves we don't know about so...

The US must have some plans to invade North Korea that we don't know about so.. if you had a point here.

metrovelvet

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

When Bush Jr. arrived in Ireland to Stormont on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003 and again to Dromoland in 2004 he was met by protests.

Of course a quick google would have told you all this, but no, according to you these anti war protests are actually a smokescreen at blackmail from nationalists & republicans, of course it is how come we didn't see this all along:rolleyes:, those dastardly republicans! I'm embarassed for you tbh.

He was met by protests yes. But he was the current head of state at the time number one. Secondly, did anyone actually try to attack him?

metrovelvet

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

I was one of the "shameful" people who got my book signed by him and I didn't withness any "anti-British" element to the protest. Fact is Tony Blair would get the same (if not more)negative reaction in British cities which is why he cancelled any book signings planned for England.

Its this "post colonial" mindest that you mention that leads people to believe that any Irish protest against a British person is merely "anti-British" and not founded on anything else.

The protests were over his policies towards Iraq, nothing to do with the fact that he is British.

Protests are one thing. Attempted physical attacks are another. I doubt anyone would have dared try to physically attack Bush or any American head of state.

Carlos_Ray

metrovelvet wrote: »

Protests are one thing. Attempted physical attacks are another. I doubt anyone would have dared try to physically attack Bush or any American head of state.

The protests were not "anti-British." Stop trying to present a false reality. Irish people have a right to protest without being undermined by people like you using the past to beat them around the head with it. (Im saying that as someone who (by queing for the book) was a target of the protest). Its stupid, the same scenes (if not much worse) would have occured in London. But when the Irish do it, your knee jerk reaction is to label them bigots.

BTW Nobody attempted to attack Bush because the protests were kept about 2 km away from him.

metrovelvet

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

The protests were not "anti-British." Stop trying to present a false reality. Irish people have a right to protest without being undermined by people like you using the past to beat them around the head with it. (Im saying that as someone who (by queing for the book) was a target of the protest). Its stupid, the same scenes (if not much worse) would have occured in London. But when the Irish do it, your knee jerk reaction is to label them bigots.

BTW Nobody attempted to attack Bush because the protests were kept about 2 km away from him.

OMG Im so exasperated trying to explain this. Jesus ****ing Christ. You don't know the difference between a protests and an attempted attack? They wouldn't have dared try to physically attack a US leader.

Nodin

metrovelvet wrote: »

He was met by protests yes. But he was the current head of state at the time number one. Secondly, did anyone actually try to attack him?

There was a four mile exclusion zone around where he was staying, so no, it didn't really arise.

He is/was the only US president not to do a "meet and greet" with the Irish people. Nixon got one, Reagan got one, but not the Dubya. That wasn't because they were worried he'd be mobbed by an adoring crowd either. There were even members of FF that didn't bother to grovel to him.

metrovelvet

So you are saying he would have been physically attacked if he hadnt stayed away?

I dont think so. I still think they would have been afraid of being shot by the secret service.

They know no way in hell the Brits would do that or they'd never hear the end of it.

Carlos_Ray

metrovelvet wrote: »

OMG Im so exasperated trying to explain this. Jesus ****ing Christ. You don't know the difference between a protests and an attempted attack? They wouldn't have dared try to physically attack a US leader.

Don’t be so naïve. Was the protest in Dublin the first protest you have ever seen in your life or something?? It was actually pretty tame. I as in the que and never once felt like things would get out of control. I've witnessed college protests over Coca Cola that were more aggressive. If Bush was signing a book in O'Connell street the scenes would have been far worse...without a doubt!

You're only pissed because your attempt to portray it as an anti-British protest has exposed your total ignorance on the issue.

irishconvert

caseyann wrote: »

I could say alot of them havent who they gave freedom to and overthrew murderous regimes.
Those countries are more trouble than their worth.
So you are anti USA because why they went in and took out a load of lunatics with guns and still trying to catch another lunatic with a gun?
I dont understand your reasoning.
Would it have been better if Saddam was still in power and let their cells of terrorists carry on?

irishconvert wrote: »

Do you know the US funded Saddam? That they funded the Taliban? The US sets up all these dictators and then when it suits them they "liberate" the country. The Saudi royal family, the biggest dictators in the middle east are supported by the US.

caseyann wrote: »

And?

You are saying these countries are full of lunatics with guns and give the US credit for taking them out. Yet the US are the ones who originally gave the guns to the lunatics. Don't you see the problem with that??? BTW, why are you linking Saddam to terror cells? What terror cells are you referring to?

caseyann

irishconvert wrote: »

You are saying these countries are full of lunatics with guns and give the US credit for taking them out. Yet the US are the ones who originally gave the guns to the lunatics. Don't you see the problem with that??? BTW, why are you linking Saddam to terror cells? What terror cells are you referring to?

Nice twist so a load is full of lunatics with guns?
So what they gave them the power and thought they were suitable for said power?? They cant control what someone does with said power.
They are both same terrorists and saddam is cut from same cloth, never linked him with the terror cells you made it up and read the sentence how you wanted to.