Tony Blairs booky wook

Denerick

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

My analogy was not regarding the purpose of the protest but how your comments reminded me of what certain sections of society said about the rebels during and after the rising.

Your bitter and hostile attitude stinks by the way.

I'm just not a fan of mass idiocy. Especially group assured idiocy that is derived from a hive mentality.

And to the other poster: I may disagree strongly with what you have to say, and may think of you as an idiot for saying it, but I would never ever prevent you from saying it in the first place. Freedom of speech works both ways.

AnimalRights

Denerick wrote: »

What do you want me to say? I over-reached myself but that doesn't mean that the 300 odd balls assembled today were not a ragtag assortment of cranks and nutjobs.

I've never been commited to the 'Drum yet.

Brussels Sprout

That picture of the gardai holding the barricades is class

Denerick

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

This was my post. How on earth can you deduce that i was at the protest from this?? You make pretty wide assumptions. You called my post retarted, which is out of line. Dont try and cloud the issue.

Your post wasn't retarded, but the people protesting were/are. If you weren't at the protest then it clearly wasn't a personal attack. For example, how could I be talking about you if you weren't at the protest? I was calling you a retard for throwing eggs at Blair. Clearly if you weren't there then you aren't a retard. Its a logical fallacy to derive a personal insult from something clearly aimed at a group of people in the abstract.

Denerick

AnimalRights wrote: »

I've never been commited to the 'Drum yet.

You would say that.

AnimalRights

Denerick wrote: »

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

So I'm clearly retarded? lol
The way you describe 'us' is the way I'm sure 99% of people here would describe you.

Denerick

AnimalRights wrote: »

So I'm clearly retarded? lol

Were you throwing eggs?

The way you describe 'us' is the way I'm sure 99% of people here would describe you.

If I was really concerned about what a lot of net-i-zens thought I'd have topped myself long ago.

AnimalRights

I'll be honest the majority of the Gardai were tolerant, but there were the 10-20% who were very much there for the aggro just as there were a few protesters who also were there for the aggro.
The Gardai who fancied a ruck were also numberless so it looks like they completely ignored the recommendations after the May Day Riots a few years back where they battered people to a pulp.

Coillte_Bhoy

Denerick wrote: »

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

How can you label a goupp of people, hundereds strong retareded?? You fell this is acceptable language?

Denerick wrote: »

If you weren't at the protest then it clearly wasn't a personal attack. For example, how could I be talking about you if you weren't at the protest? I was calling you a retard for throwing eggs at Blair.

You clearly stated that my post inferred i was at the protest.

Denerick wrote: »

Clearly if you weren't there then you aren't a retard. Its a logical fallacy to derive a personal insult from something clearly aimed at a group of people in the abstract.

It was no tclearly aimed at a group of abstartc people.

Do you also fell it's relevant to this thread to make jokes aboput Cromwell's appalling behaviour in this country??

Wolfe Tone

Haha, this is quite funny actually. CC O Brien indeed.

Denerick, calling that chap in the wheelchair a retard aint on! PC police, we need you!

Nodin

AnimalRights wrote: »

The Gardai who fancied a ruck were also numberless.....

..purely coincidental, I'm sure.

There seems to be dearth of missiles, for a supposed "pelting"....

AnimalRights

Denerick wrote: »

Were you throwing eggs?

Between holding my Camera in the pissing rain and not reviewing my shopping list correctly alas no.

AnimalRights

Nodin wrote: »

..purely coincidental, I'm sure.

There seems to be dearth of missiles, for a supposed "pelting"....

There were very VERY few 'pelting' incidents.
In fact the councils overtime workers will be well disappointed.

Nodin

AnimalRights wrote: »

There were very VERY few 'pelting' incidents.
In fact the councils overtime workers will be well disappointed.

I was thinking that, as I've seen the footage on Sky (spit), RTE and CH4, and its not exactly the rain of eggs and George Webbs I was expecting...

ANarcho-Munk

Denerick wrote: »

Wevs. This wasn't about Iraq and you know it.

No, I'm afraid I don't know it. If I were attending the protest it wouldn't be because of my political affiliations, it would foremost be because I am opposed to what has happenend (and continues to happen) in Iraq. People are individuals, not slaves to their political parties.


And if you care to explain, then what was the protest about IYO? and what are these clandestine elements that you are inadvertently referring to?

The reason only 300 people turned up is because no-one else cares. The fact that these protestors are unrepresentative of the nation at large is far from irrelevant, it is the most salient aspect of this.

You see, I think things are far more nuanced than the way you see them. Obviously (and no one is disputing this with you) the crowd weren't and aren't claiming to be representative of the nation of Ireland. This is something that has been repeatedly stated in this thread and is something you continue to ignore. And as I have also said, if you really do want to get into the idea of representation I think that it can be very abstract in scenario's such as these.

Let us take an example. There was a TASC survey on income inequalities carried out recently which reported that 87 per cent of respondents believe that wealth in Ireland is unfairly distributed and that 49% favour a maximum wage being implemented and an increasing in the minimum wage.
These are quite significant numbers yet if we contrast these figures to the numbers which turn up on the streets at protests they don't compute at all. So in this regard I don't think we should dismiss protests completly out of hand as sometimes they can be quite symptomatic of a wider general feeling.
Likewise, I bet if we were to poll the people of Ireland on whether they support(ed) the war on Iraq that the resounding answer would be a overwhelming "no".

If you see 200 paedophiles protesting in front of Ann Summers, would you say it was a 'paedo protest' or an 'anti adult sex protest'? Of course the example is exaggerated, but your semantics are all over the place.

Silly attempt at a ridiculous strawman.

ANarcho-Munk

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Denerick, calling that chap in the wheelchair a retard aint on! PC police, we need you!

Nah, i'm not very PC at all tbh. Ask Animalrights, he knows me. I just think that anyone with the temerity to flat out call 300 people at an anti-war protest all "retards" and "twats" smacks of total elitism and nauseating obnoxousness.:rolleyes:

Redr

As an aside I know of someone who worked with many British politicians over the years and who, when asked, gives an objective and fair view of individuals. When I asked 'and what was Gordon Brown like?' the reply given was 'Poisonous'; he was extremely anygry a lot of the time and given to rages. Seemingly Blair was quite personable, Blunkett's language was blue, etc....

Wolfe Tone

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

Nah, i'm not very PC at all tbh. Ask Animalrights, he knows me. I just think that anyone with the temerity to flat out call 300 people at an anti-war protest all "retards" and "twats" smacks of total elitism and nauseating obnoxousness.

Oh I agree.

I have a feeling he is on a bit of a wind up mission.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

McDougal

Denerick wrote: »

I'm just not a fan of mass idiocy. Especially group assured idiocy that is derived from a hive mentality.

And to the other poster: I may disagree strongly with what you have to say, and may think of you as an idiot for saying it, but I would never ever prevent you from saying it in the first place. Freedom of speech works both ways.

Except if you are a dead Iraqi murdered in the Bush/Blair war. They have no free speech. The protest today gave the dead a voice. Of course that isn't acceptable to the sindo reading mis-educated masses whos sole purpose in life is consuming and accumulating.

Eliot Rosewater

What did the protesters hope to achieve today? What tangible results were they hoping for?

I'm a fervent believer in free speech, more so than most. However, giving this country a bad name, abusing ordinary citizens, throwing eggs and costing this country a few thousand euro for a Garda presence is something I can not tolerate. Especially when this protest will achieve absolutely nothing.

I suppose that makes me a West Brit. Just be aware, when a nationalist calls me a West Brit, I take it as a compliment.

lugha

I would suggest that there’s a false dichotomy being implied by those who condemn the US, and because of their support GB, for assuming the role of world policeman, Iraq being one example, in that there is a misconception about what they see as the alternative.

Maybe they are grateful that we can enjoy a free, tolerant and pluralist existence only because the biggest boy in the class of nations (the US) just so happens to espouse these views and aggressively seeks to maintain them (On second thoughts, many of them are utterly ungrateful). And we are very fortunate to have such a state of affairs; in the last century they have taken on, and seen of, the vile ideologies of fascism and communism.

They no doubt believe that a far more desirable and attainable world would be one were Western values also prevailed but where the US were willing to be just another country, equal to all others and on ethical grounds, be prepared to refrain from exercising their greater military muscle.

Desirable? Perhaps. Attainable? Absolutely not! The alternative to a superpower espousing democracy but behaving unethically is a superpower espousing something far less savoury but also willing to behave unethically, though a far more sinister description than unethical might be more apt. Surely the most naive of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows dwellers can see this truism? Do you think you would have the freedom to criticize world leaders on an internet forum if communism had prevailed?

It is a common logical error to assume that if a system is flawed, there must be a better alternative. For all of the horrors you see in a US dominated world, it is probably far better that any of the realistic alternatives. Of course, we may well find this out one day. It is quite conceivably that an alternative ideology will prevail one day; depending on who they are and how powerful they become, they may make the US look like choir boys.

Memnoch

Denerick wrote: »

I'm neither a coward or a warmongerer. Just an average guy who believes everybody is entitled to their say, without having to deal with the intimidation by the feckless and the extreme.

You've really lost the plot here.

Does your bare faced hypocrisy not shame you?

You go on and on and on about freedom of speech and facism and everything like that. You talk about everybody being entitled to their say.

Well maybe you should stand up equally for the freedom of speech and right to peaceful protest of the people who oppose Tony Blair's actions and his attempts to whitewash his murderous past.

Yet all you've done is slander and launch personal assault after personal assault and called people fascists and extremists.

When as a matter of fact, the most extremist sentiment appears to be coming from you in post after post laden with vitriol and ad hominem attacks.

Seriously, I thought you were a lot smarter than this. Cop on.

McDougal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well if the paedophiles have a demonstration and are attacked I assume you'll be the first to wade in and defend them?

Wolfe Tone

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What did the protesters hope to achieve today? What tangible results were they hoping for?

I'm a fervent believer in free speech, more so than most. However, giving this country a bad name, abusing ordinary citizens, throwing eggs and costing this country a few thousand euro for a Garda presence is something I can not tolerate. Especially when this protest will achieve absolutely nothing.

I suppose that makes me a West Brit. Just be aware, when a nationalist calls me a West Brit, I take it as a compliment.

Im a republican, I wouldn't label those who were against the protest as west brits, I planned to get a signed copy myself.... not because I have any affinity for the man but because I am interested in him as a historical figure. A signed copy of his book would be neat to have.

However, there is nothing wrong with protesting the mans presence, I understand it. However there is no need to throw shoes and eggs. It is counter productive. As for the reasons for the protest, that is quite clear. It clearly demonstrates how that person feels and shows a willingness to back up what they may say on the internets.

Memnoch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't really care about all that west brit nonsense.

This has nothing to do with socialism as far as I'm concerned.

Tony Blair abused his position of power to participate in an illegal invasion that resulted in countless deaths. An invasion spurned by greed and profit and enacted for the most corrupt of motives. An invasion justified by lies and deliberate deception of the public.

Buying his book doesn't make you a traitor. But it does contribute to helping Blair, who if he wasn't on the side of "victory," would surely be tried and condemned as a war criminal, to rebrand his image in history. And IMO anyone who truly believes in freedom, peace or human rights would want no part of him.

So if you're the leader of some poor african country and you launch wars you're a blood thirsty war mongerer.

But if you are the leader of a major western power and launch a war motivated by greed and profit and dress it up with lies and fancy rhethoric that makes you one of the great statement of the last decade?

What an utter, fecking, miserable joke.

P.S. Tony Blair absolutely has a right to free speech. He can publish his book and tell all the lies he wants and put his point of view out. But it is the duty of every concentious citizen of this planet to point him out for the liar, hypocrite, murderer and war criminal that he is.

McDougal

lugha wrote: »

I would suggest that there’s a false dichotomy being implied by those who condemn the US, and because of their support GB, for assuming the role of world policeman, Iraq being one example, in that there is a misconception about what they see as the alternative.

Maybe they are grateful that we can enjoy a free, tolerant and pluralist existence only because the biggest boy in the class of nations (the US) just so happens to espouse these views and aggressively seeks to maintain them (On second thoughts, many of them are utterly ungrateful). And we are very fortunate to have such a state of affairs; in the last century they have taken on, and seen of, the vile ideologies of fascism and communism.

They no doubt believe that a far more desirable and attainable world would be one were Western values also prevailed but where the US were willing to be just another country, equal to all others and on ethical grounds, be prepared to refrain from exercising their greater military muscle.

Desirable? Perhaps. Attainable? Absolutely not! The alternative to a superpower espousing democracy but behaving unethically is a superpower espousing something far less savoury but also willing to behave unethically, though a far more sinister description than unethical might be more apt. Surely the most naive of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows dwellers can see this truism? Do you think you would have the freedom to criticize world leaders on an internet forum if communism had prevailed?

It is a common logical error to assume that if a system is flawed, there must be a better alternative. For all of the horrors you see in a US dominated world, it is probably far better that any of the realistic alternatives. Of course, we may well find this out one day. It is quite conceivably that an alternative ideology will prevail one day; depending on who they are and how powerful they become, they may make the US look like choir boys.

Pseudo-intellectualism taken to new heights (or depths)

AnimalRights

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The BBC website said this but I can certainly tell you that IF there were more book people then protesters that book sold many many copies today!
I took photos from front and side of Easons and while it was a decent queue from my numbers protesters still outnumbered them.
The cops had a good few there too!

Eliot Rosewater

Memnoch wrote: »

Yet all you've done is slander and launch personal assault after personal assault and called people fascists and extremists.

I've read the whole thread, and I don't think Denerick has said that the protesters should be prevented from protesting. Him thinking they're "idiots" does not in any way negate his views on free speech. Though I believe Richard Boyd Barret has a right to speak, I think what he says is stupid. Does that make me a hypocrite?

For what it's worth, Denerick believes in free speech more than the average person, and more than most here. You should pursue a different line of attack.

Jeboa Safari

McDougal wrote: »

This is the free Iraq where Blackwater mercenaries roam free and murder at will? The free Iraq where the public wealth has been handed over to private corporations? The free Iraq that still has over 50,000 US troops occupying it? The free Iraq where kids are born mutilated because of the effects of white phosporous? The free Iraq that has the highest cancer rates in the world thanks to the use of chemical weapons by the invaders? The free Iraq that has seen unemployment skyrocket since the invasion? The free Iraq that 4 million refugees were forced to flee to escape violence? The free Iraq that is now riddled with religious sectarianism and extremism? The free Iraq that has bombs going off in markets every week?

I'm really interested in your definition of freedom. No matter what hell you live in and no matter how much you suffer you are free as long as you tick a piece of paper every few years to choose which puppet gets the merc?

Voting in free elections is part of what I'd define as freedom.
What's your definition of freedom?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

Memnoch wrote: »

But it does contribute to helping Blair

Blair is donating the proceeds to charity. He doesn't benefit personally; a veterans charity does.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i1uTpadTiMBrvJcaBbjwVE8pyy1w

AnimalRights

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What did the protesters hope to achieve today? What tangible results were they hoping for?

I'm a fervent believer in free speech, more so than most. However, giving this country a bad name, abusing ordinary citizens, throwing eggs and costing this country a few thousand euro for a Garda presence is something I can not tolerate. Especially when this protest will achieve absolutely nothing.

I suppose that makes me a West Brit. Just be aware, when a nationalist calls me a West Brit, I take it as a compliment.

1) To let Blair know he is not welcome in this country, the majority of people in this state were against the war,

2) Is down to 'our' government for sealing off our nations main street so Tony can use his famous grin and be a good guy.

3) It will achieve Blair not ever having a public appearence in this country again...

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair, that doesn't appear to be the case at all. I wandered down and there was a hell of a lot more than 300 protesters there.

Memnoch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I don't agree with that kind of carry on. People should contain themselves. It's stupid not to. But politicians get egged sometimes and tomatoed. That's part of democracy. I seriously doubt there was any real threat to Tony.

But the vast majority of people around the world who are disgusted by Blair are not interested in violence and I'm sure plenty of the protesters aren't either.

We don't condemn all of the UK for Blair's decision to invade Iraq. So why condemn anyone who wants to protest because some took it a bit too far?

AnimalRights

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Blair is donating the proceeds to charity. He doesn't benefit personally; a veterans charity does.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i1uTpadTiMBrvJcaBbjwVE8pyy1w

Yes he can survive without it as he gets 100k sterling for his US speeches, just like that other criminal ex PM Maggie Thatcher on the US speech circuit.

Giving the money to that charity was cynical to put mildly.

The guy is hated only 2nd to Bush jnr.

A Dub in Glasgo

I have read the whole thread and it is so funny how Denerick believes in free speech yet his actions in this thread proves otherwise.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Blair is donating the proceeds to charity. He doesn't benefit personally; a veterans charity does.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i1uTpadTiMBrvJcaBbjwVE8pyy1w

Blood money to try and help his PR image and his 'legacy'

OhNoYouDidn't

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What did the protesters hope to achieve today? What tangible results were they hoping for?

I'm a fervent believer in free speech, more so than most. However, giving this country a bad name, abusing ordinary citizens, throwing eggs and costing this country a few thousand euro for a Garda presence is something I can not tolerate. Especially when this protest will achieve bsolutely nothing.

I suppose that makes me a West Brit. Just be aware, when a nationalist calls me a West Brit, I take it as a compliment.

Again, its been said before. Someone somewhere recommended to Blair to come here to launch the book presumably because there is an opinion that the Irish are an apathetic soft touch. If it does nothing else than remind those folk that its not the case and irritate the Sindo self appointed moral guardians, well thats an achievement

As for giving Ireland a bad name, I don't think so. Blair is as popular as cancer., him getting the treatment in Dublin is likely to increase tourism.

Coillte_Bhoy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Blair is donating the proceeds to charity. He doesn't benefit personally; a veterans charity does.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i1uTpadTiMBrvJcaBbjwVE8pyy1w

LOL. Aye right he doesnt benefit at all. No speaking engagements, directorships etc etc

Memnoch

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Blair is donating the proceeds to charity. He doesn't benefit personally; a veterans charity does.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i1uTpadTiMBrvJcaBbjwVE8pyy1w

You are smarter than to make such an utterly disingenuous argument.

This is about his place in history and his image which he is trying to whitewash. And giving the proceeds to a charity is a typically cynical ploy. If he was to try and claim the profits from the book it would only destroy his image 10fold and defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. I'm sure Blair and his PR folk know that all too well.

I won't get into an argument about the charity itself but I believe people have raised questions about it and its affiliations already, but that's neither here nor there for me.

But to say that he doesn't benefit personally is ridiculous.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its hardly a riot either.

Blair is not popular, anywhere, and I'm delighted his PR stunt backfired.

Brussels Sprout

lugha wrote: »

I would suggest that there’s a false dichotomy being implied by those who condemn the US, and because of their support GB, for assuming the role of world policeman, Iraq being one example, in that there is a misconception about what they see as the alternative.

Maybe they are grateful that we can enjoy a free, tolerant and pluralist existence only because the biggest boy in the class of nations (the US) just so happens to espouse these views and aggressively seeks to maintain them (On second thoughts, many of them are utterly ungrateful). And we are very fortunate to have such a state of affairs; in the last century they have taken on, and seen of, the vile ideologies of fascism and communism.

They no doubt believe that a far more desirable and attainable world would be one were Western values also prevailed but where the US were willing to be just another country, equal to all others and on ethical grounds, be prepared to refrain from exercising their greater military muscle.

Desirable? Perhaps. Attainable? Absolutely not! The alternative to a superpower espousing democracy but behaving unethically is a superpower espousing something far less savoury but also willing to behave unethically, though a far more sinister description than unethical might be more apt. Surely the most naive of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows dwellers can see this truism? Do you think you would have the freedom to criticize world leaders on an internet forum if communism had prevailed?

It is a common logical error to assume that if a system is flawed, there must be a better alternative. For all of the horrors you see in a US dominated world, it is probably far better that any of the realistic alternatives. Of course, we may well find this out one day. It is quite conceivably that an alternative ideology will prevail one day; depending on who they are and how powerful they become, they may make the US look like choir boys.

That's actually a pretty interesting point. I must admit I haven't thought of it in that way before. It's rather depressing though.

I still don't think the Iraqi invasion achieved anything though. I mean if it was, as most people say, about oil then have we actually seen it's benefit in terms of increased oil production and supply from Iraq?

And has this even bolstered America's grip on world politics in any way? Quite frankly the economic drain of fighting in the middle east has probably weakened America in many ways.

Jeboa Safari

AnimalRights wrote: »

1) To let Blair know he is not welcome in this country, the majority of people in this state were against the war,

2) Is down to 'our' government for sealing off our nations main street so Tony can use his famous grin and be a good guy.

3) It will achieve Blair not ever having a public appearence in this country again...

If he wasn't welcome in this country then more than 200-300 people would have turned out for the protest. He got a good reception last night on the late late show and plenty turned up for his book signing, so I don't think he is unwelcome in this country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

AnimalRights wrote: »

1) To let Blair know he is not welcome in this country, the majority of people in this state were against the war,

What do you mean he is not welcome in this country? Do you think 300 protesters outside Easons have a right to determine who and who is not welcome? The majority of this country do not have a right to bar people from entering. There is the uncomfortable notion of personal liberty, and notion lost on many at the protest, no doubt.

AnimalRights wrote: »

2) Is down to 'our' government for sealing off our nations main street so Tony can use his famous grin and be a good guy.

The street was sealed off because of the protest, not the other way around.

AnimalRights wrote: »

3) It will achieve Blair not ever having a public appearence in this country again...

I certainly hope not. Whatever he's done in the past, he should be allowed come here. People should be equally allowed express their resentment. Pelting eggs, shouting abuse and wasting Garda resources not included.

Wolfe Tone

Whats the point in throwing eggs and shoes? Just makes you look stupid and enables you to be written off as idiots.

Why not shoot him? If it is gonna go violent no point half assing it.

Brussels Sprout

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Blair is not popular, anywhere, and I'm delighted his PR stunt backfired.

There is one place!

He said himself that the only place that he is popular is Sierra Leone (after the British Army intervened in a potential genocide-I don't even think it was his idea)

McDougal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So if you saw people demonstrating for the legalisation of paedophilla and theh were physically attacked would you intervene to protect them? Yes or No, it's a straight forward question.

And if any group was inciting people to commit sex crimes then yes I would would call for it to be made illegal.