Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tony Blairs booky wook

1…181920212224»

Comments

  • #692
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 9,064 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #693
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭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?


  • #694
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭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.


  • #695
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭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.


  • #696
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #698
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭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.


  • #699
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭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.


  • #700
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭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?


  • #701
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    irishconvert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,866 ✭✭✭irishconvert


    caseyann wrote: »
    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.

    You said it in the above quote from you. Seriously, if you can't follow what you yourself said then there is no point in carrying this on.


  • #703
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    irishconvert wrote: »
    You said it in the above quote from you. Seriously, if you can't follow what you yourself said then there is no point in carrying this on.

    You and your buddy thanker Nodin are really getting on my nerves now,you because you actually still even after me telling you i didnt say it like that insist i did.Just for the reason to disagree and try get your nil point across.
    I would back the US and Blair up for all his decisions keeps little terrorists out of our countries.
    They are full of terrorists who would kill you off as quick be it whether you are Muslim or not and you wouldnt be to them as you dont live as they do (Just remember that)They also have backing and participation from the civilians and i remember the pictures and video footage of them burning and celebrating the 9/11 murders.Also the death to those who insult Islam banners.And the nerve to walk through English streets with them banners.
    I would have took their pictures and booted them right out of the country if i was in charge.
    Insult a religion get threatened with death that is beyond nut jobs.

    And Nodin for his constant half attempt to be mister superior :rolleyes:


  • #704
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    caseyann wrote: »
    I would back the US and Blair up for all his decisions keeps little terrorists out of our countries.

    Iraq was not involved in sending terrorists, little, medium sized, or larger, to "our countries". Furthermore....
    The invasion of Iraq "substantially" increased the terrorist threat to the UK, the former head of MI5 has said.
    Giving evidence to the Iraq inquiry, Baroness Manningham-Buller said the action had radicalised "a few among a generation".
    As a result, she said she was not "surprised" that UK nationals were involved in the 7/7 bombings in London.
    She said she believed the intelligence on Iraq's threat was not "substantial enough" to justify the action.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
    The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
    The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
    A report concluding that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost
    http://www.stwr.org/united-states-of-america/the-iraq-effect-war-has-increased-terrorism-sevenfold-worldwide.html.


  • #705
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Four people were charged with public order offences. So using your logic that only those facing charges can be called criminal the vast majority of the protesters were peaceful only four were not. They haven't been found guilty yet wither so none of the protesters are criminals.


Advertisement