Tony Blairs booky wook

OhNoYouDidn't

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Hmm I dunno-do you think you could get off the fence there and be a little more divisive :rolleyes:

I could say anyone who didn't protest at Blair is

a: in the UDA
b: a warmongering muslim hating baby killer
c: gay

and I still wouldn't sound as idiotic as this guy

OhNoYouDidn't

princeofparma wrote: »

A diverse protest? Non-aligned? What a joke.

32 CSM, Eirigi, Socialist Worker's Party and anarchists.

A collection of terrorist supporters, mad cap cranks and student twits.

Not even the Shinners were prepared to turn up.

The shinners were inside ffs.

No point debating with you, because you won't be here long enough to answer.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its infantile to suggest a man as divisive as him doing a PR stunt in Dublin won't raise ire and even more childish is the abuse being heaped on them. There is an edge to it.

I confess. I've been working for Mi5 all along.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

I confess. I've been working for Mi5 all along.

Not what I was getting at. There is a fundamentally anti democratic streak to a lot of the right wing posters on this site that flares up whenever their social inferiors have the temerity to stand up for themselves.

Jeboa Safari

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Not what I was getting at. There is a fundamentally anti democratic streak to a lot of the right wing posters on this site that flares up whenever their social inferiors have the temerity to stand up for themselves.

Stand up for themselves by breaking the law or intimidating others?

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Not what I was getting at. There is a fundamentally anti democratic streak to a lot of the right wing posters on this site that flares up whenever their social inferiors have the temerity to stand up for themselves.

Laughable.

I find it disgusting when a tiny unrepresentative rabble engage in violence to express a political point.

If you protest peacefully then you have nothing to be ashamed of. I'm sure your pals in the 32CSM had a fun day out.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Laughable.

I find it disgusting when a tiny unrepresentative rabble engage in violence to express a political point.

If you protest peacefully then you have nothing to be ashamed of. I'm sure your pals in the 32CSM had a fun day out.

My pals?

OhNoYouDidn't

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Stand up for themselves by breaking the law or intimidating others?

Irrelevant. All protest is by definition intimidatory. There is a problem with the concept of protest on this forum.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

My pals?

Just saying, you share some strange company. You always seem to be making excuses for tiny irrelevant minorities indulging in violence against the expressed wishes of the majority.

And you have the cheek to accuse the 'right' (I am an admirer of the Nordic social democratic model by the way, so don't attempt to pawn me off as some irrelevant libertarian) of being undemocratic. As I said, laughable.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Just saying, you share some strange company. You always seem to be making excuses for tiny irrelevant minorities indulging in violence against the expressed wishes of the majority.

And you have the cheek to accuse the 'right' (I am an admirer of the Nordic social democratic model by the way, so don't attempt to pawn me off as some irrelevant libertarian) of being undemocratic. As I said, laughable.

No, you are smearing. I defend the right to protest and I am a dissident republican. You withdrew this exact slur about a week ago, and here we are again.

If you cannot debate the point without personalising it and throwing these little jibes about please don't respond to me again.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, you are smearing. I defend the right to protest and I am a dissident republican. You withdrew this exact slur about a week ago, and here we are again.

You started the smears by suggesting that I am opposed and against political protest as an instrument of expression of discontent. I patently am not. Largely I disagree with most protests, as I think the motivations and leadership are silly, extreme, irrelevant, and ego massagers, but thats a long way off from suggesting that I don't think they have an inherent right to protest. As I've already said to others here, please understand the distinction between me thinking something is stupid and me thinking something should be banned.

If you cannot debate the point without personalising it and throwing these little jibes about please don't respond to me again.

I have not personalised it. I am merely expressing an opinion about the kind of people you consistently defend. You now believe political violence is justified in order to prevent a former Prime Minister of Britain from signing his memoirs. You also believe that people opposed to the said political violence are 'right wing and opposed to political protest'

Look in the mirror before you cast such laughable accusations. Slander and personalisation me hole.

OhNoYouDidn't

Throwing an egg is 'political violence'?

What a big girls blouse you are.

Denerick

They attempted to charge through the Garda lines.

I gave up on the whole adolescent defiance of authority thing when I was 13. I live in the real world now and understand that engaging in violence is the political impulse of a froth at the mouth fascist.

And egg throwing is both demeaning to the issue at stake and the cause it defends. In normal circumstances I would laugh about it, I wouldn't care. It just so happens that the kind of people doing this are the same twits we have to deal with on a daily basis, handing out leaflets on O'Connel street, putting up stupid posters all over the city and writing up press releases to defend dissidents attempting to kill people in the name of some 'Republic'.

Let's just say I'm rather jaded by them all.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

They attempted to charge through the Garda lines.

I gave up on the whole adolescent defiance of authority thing when I was 13. I live in the real world now and understand that engaging in violence is the political impulse of a froth at the mouth fascist.

And egg throwing is both demeaning to the issue at stake and the cause it defends. In normal circumstances I would laugh about it, I wouldn't care. It just so happens that the kind of people doing this are the same twits we have to deal with on a daily basis, handing out leaflets on O'Connel street, putting up stupid posters all over the city and writing up press releases to defend dissidents attempting to kill people in the name of some 'Republic'.

Let's just say I'm rather jaded by them all.

There you go again. "I don't like dissidents. I don't like protesters. Therefore all protesters are dissidents"

Technically that's autism.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There you go again. "I don't like dissidents. I don't like protesters. Therefore all protesters are dissidents"

Technically that's autism.

There were some socialist workers party members, Trotskyists, anarchists, animal rights people, hippies, students and self righteous dullards there as well. I'm sure I didn't leave them out.

my impersonation of OhNoYouDidnt wrote:

Oh, please do not personalise the discussion with your derogatory remark as above. Yah yah yah. waah. I'm calling the moderators to dispel this improper attack on my character. The smearing and personalisation of it all. The drama of it all.

Jeboa Safari

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Irrelevant. All protest is by definition intimidatory. There is a problem with the concept of protest on this forum.

No its not. You don't see many people complaining here about people protesting over the closure of their local hospital or what ever. How come these people can protest peacefully, without feeling the need to charge Garda lines or harass the rest of the public

OhNoYouDidn't

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

No its not. You don't see many people complaining here about people protesting over the closure of their local hospital or what ever. How come these people can protest peacefully, without feeling the need to charge Garda lines or harass the rest of the public

You do actually.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

There were some socialist workers party members, Trotskyists, anarchists, animal rights people, hippies, students and self righteous dullards there as well. I'm sure I didn't leave them out.

So why didn't you decide to call me a hippy or a student? Why pick, yet again, on the smear of dissident when the argument is slipping away from you?

h2005

the_monkey wrote: »

Scum were protesting today -


pisses me off these demonstrations, most of those people could not give a f*ck about Iraq, they are just looking for trouble ...


I saw an Islam stand outside the GPO today - That is what we should fear ... this terrorism entering our country.


Tony Blair is a nice guy, I hope the GARDAI beat the sh*t out of that SCUM that was arrested today.

lol nearly spat out my coffee

AlekSmart

h2005 posted...

.lol nearly spat out my coffee

It better be FairTrade coffee or you`ll be in BIIIG Trouble on here.....:D

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

They attempted to charge through the Garda lines.

.....all 10 to 15 of them...maybe even 20.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So why didn't you decide to call me a hippy or a student? Why pick, yet again, on the smear of dissident when the argument is slipping away from you?

You could be an anarcist, a student twit, or a self righteous dullard either. I did summon quite a cast of caricatures.

Its rather obvious where your sympathies lie. I've met your kind in Northern pubs before and you can see through the bluster and into the inner horror of fascism when you look hard enough.

Nijmegen

I was passing by on other business as it happened, and when Blair arrived there was a hail of shoes (admittedly, I thought it amusing, and they got only as far as the rather wide footpath, no further) and eggs. Some threw heavier items - from the corner at supermacs (nowhere near Blair, who had gone inside) someone threw a plank of wood at a black van, narrowly missing a plain clothes security man standing there.

That sort of thing is just malicious crap.

I saw one guy breach the barrier and then didn't really know what to do - he waved his hands a bit and was standing in the street when the Guards copped on, and a guard in a helmet took him by the arm and returned him into the crowd, which was trying to surge forward at one point to get through.

There was a mix of people there - the Concerned types who I feel are entitled to their view, but quite a few trouble makers, the types to try and breach the cordon or throw planks of wood at security men, who are obviously guilty by association and deserve a whack on the head.

At the end of the day, you only cheapen your cause by such actions.

20Cent

Result!!
Nice one protesters.


Tony Blair may cancel London book signing
Former PM considers pulling out of event, citing concern about 'hassle and cost' to police following skirmishes at previous signing in Dublin


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/06/tony-blair-cancel-london-event

BlaasForRafa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, you are smearing. I defend the right to protest and I am a dissident republican. You withdrew this exact slur about a week ago, and here we are again.

A dissident republican? how so , in the support CIRA, RIRA, Óglaigh na hÉireann type do you mean?

Denerick

The protestors used violence to intimidate a private citizen for signing his own book. I can imagine the outrage if far right fascists protested against Tony Benn trying to get his book signed, and he subsequently pulled out. The hypocrisy of the militant left is staggering.

irishconvert

Denerick wrote: »

The protestors used violence to intimidate a private citizen for signing his own book. I can imagine the outrage if far right fascists protested against Tony Benn trying to get his book signed, and he subsequently pulled out. The hypocrisy of the militant left is staggering.

Does it not matter to you that this "private citizen" is responsible for the deaths of 100,000's of people in Iraq and Afghanistan?

invinciblePRSTV

20Cent wrote: »

Result!!
Nice one protesters.


Tony Blair may cancel London book signing
Former PM considers pulling out of event, citing concern about 'hassle and cost' to police following skirmishes at previous signing in Dublin


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/06/tony-blair-cancel-london-event

Great news!

Denerick wrote: »

The protestors used violence to intimidate a private citizen for signing his own book. I can imagine the outrage if far right fascists protested against Tony Benn trying to get his book signed, and he subsequently pulled out. The hypocrisy of the militant left is staggering.

Yawn,you're a broken record on this thread at this stage lad. You don't like some of the eleements involved in the anti war protest we get this, but to talk about the hypcorisy of the 'militant' left when you seemingly have no problem with Blairs corruption & war mongering ways suggests to me you just have a bee in your bonnet about left parties and fail to see the bigger picture.

simplistic2

Haha after watching a few videos of the protest the irony of the situation became clear. Most of the protesters were waving socialist flags and I find it funny that the only reason Tony was able to start that war was because he was in control of a filthy welfare/warfare socialist state.

That being said I would still like to see the criminal captured and put into a forced labour camp to begin to pay back the damage to the families he destroyed.

Scofflaw

I appreciate this is a topic that generates strong opinions, but perhaps a couple of people might consider that they're getting a bit too hot under the collar. Try not to refer to other people as 'autistic', or having 'meaningless lives', for example.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

I note Blair is mouthing off about dissidents north and south of the border, the BNP and last week about Islamists. Somebody should nudge Cameron and tell him there is some little has been trying to do his job. What next for Blair ...evangelism? I believe there is great money in that, right down his street deceit and lies and money.

Wolfe Tone

So, who has read the book yet? A good read?
(moving away from dissident crap)

Rabble Rabble

Tony Blair decides to not turn up in Piccadilly, wednesday, in what can only be seen as a victory for the totalitarian marxtards, hippies, and dissidents who protested his right of a prominent politician to sign a book and make a speech on private Property. The very same dullards who would cry to high heaven about fascism were right wing Christians to so intimidate Hitchens, Dawkins, or Pullman that they could not turn up to sign their books.

As would we all, but as usual with the left, bully boy tactics on their side are democratic; on the other side :fascist.

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/statement-from-tony-blair-on-wednesdays-book-signing/

who the fug

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Tony Blair decides to not turn up in Piccadilly, wednesday, in what can only be seen as a victory for the totalitarian marxtards, hippies, and dissidents who protested his right of a prominent politician to sign a book and make a speech on private Property. The very same dullards who would cry to high heaven about fascism were right wing Christians to so intimidate Hitchens, Dawkins, or Pullman that they could not turn up to sign their books.

As would we all, but as usual with the left, bully boy tactics on their side are democratic; on the other side :fascist.

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/statement-from-tony-blair-on-wednesdays-book-signing/

That is a result as I work near that Waterstones, and can do without rent a mob on Wednesday night

McDougal

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Tony Blair decides to not turn up in Piccadilly, wednesday, in what can only be seen as a victory for the totalitarian marxtards, hippies, and dissidents who protested his right of a prominent politician to sign a book and make a speech on private Property. The very same dullards who would cry to high heaven about fascism were right wing Christians to so intimidate Hitchens, Dawkins, or Pullman that they could not turn up to sign their books.

As would we all, but as usual with the left, bully boy tactics on their side are democratic; on the other side :fascist.

http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/statement-from-tony-blair-on-wednesdays-book-signing/

It's a sad day when war criminals can't promote their self-serving memoirs.

AnimalRights

Denerick wrote: »

animal rights people

I am a person not a people :mad:

are u saying that I'm a nut job?

Denerick

AnimalRights wrote: »

I am a person not a people :mad:

are u saying that I'm a nut job?

I excluded you from the colourful list of characters earlier on. Now I have expanded it to include the ALF and PETA. You should be honoured, not offended.

OhNoYouDidn't

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

A dissident republican? how so , in the support CIRA, RIRA, Óglaigh na hÉireann type do you mean?

Thats what he claims, even though I have been critical of them.

He is an infant. He wont debate the topic without smearing people who disagree with him.

Denerick

irishconvert wrote: »

Does it not matter to you that this "private citizen" is responsible for the deaths of 100,000's of people in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Tony Blair has been made into a bogeyman. That is convenient for the Labour Party and the rest of the British political spectrum, as it deflects blame from them, but at times the reaction has been absurd. Blair didn't wield the kind of political power you think and he certainly wasn't the only leader calling for the invasion of Iraq. I disagree with the war and hope he goes to hell because of it, but people tend to lose their sense of proportion when dealing with Blair.

Exclude Iraq from the equation and you have some very honourable interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. And Northern Ireland. Castigating him over Iraq alone, when he was re-elected after bringing Britain into war, does a dis-service to history and only serves to simplify politics beyond all recognition.

In short, the bogeyman Blair has now officially become a carnival and bogeyman figure for the hard left. Its all rather amusing, really.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats what he claims, even though I have been critical of them.

He is an infant. He wont debate the topic without smearing people who disagree with him.

Do you mind not personalising the discussion in this fashion? It offends my bodily integrity. I demand you retract the statement. My honour is at stake here.

AnimalRights

Denerick wrote: »

Castigating him over Iraq alone,

Afghanistan.

AnimalRights

Denerick is just taking the piss at this stage lol, then again it may have been from page 1 :pac:

Scofflaw

Infraction for OhNoYouDidn't for insulting other posters, warning for AnimalRights for same but milder and less sustained, warning for breach of the peace for Denerick for continuing to rattle the cages after other posters had resorted to insults and offending themselves.

For those new users who wanted to comment on this, I draw your attention to the forum charter (which of course you read). Do not discuss moderation in-thread - it's disruptive. If you have a comment, it goes in the moderation discussion thread stickied at the top of the forum, or by PM to the mod concerned.

moderately,
Scofflaw

invinciblePRSTV

Denerick wrote: »

Tony Blair has been made into a bogeyman. That is convenient for the Labour Party and the rest of the British political spectrum, as it deflects blame from them, but at times the reaction has been absurd. Blair didn't wield the kind of political power you think and he certainly wasn't the only leader calling for the invasion of Iraq. I disagree with the war and hope he goes to hell because of it, but people tend to lose their sense of proportion when dealing with Blair.

Yeah right. Tony Blair was not a convenient political powerless bogeyman like you portray, he had to fight to get his way nd convince a sceptical UK public and parliament into supporting his adventures. Any cursory knowledge of the months leading up to the 2003 invasion will tell you that.

Denerick wrote: »

Exclude Iraq from the equation and you have some very honourable interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. And Northern Ireland. Castigating him over Iraq alone, when he was re-elected after bringing Britain into war, does a dis-service to history and only serves to simplify politics beyond all recognition.

In short, the bogeyman Blair has now officially become a carnival and bogeyman figure for the hard left. Its all rather amusing, really.

It's clear you have a soft spot for Blair,perhaps this is why you are trying to sugar coat his prominent involvement with the Iraq invasion and ignore his years of political corruption and conspiring to sideline international convention with Bush. He had roles to play in the conflicts you outlined, but they do not tell the full story of Blairs disgraced years as UK PM.

Ren2k7

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Tut tut lads, cant be discussing modding in thread.

(Looks over shoulder for secret police) LOL jk..

Seriously though, back on topic. I was talking to a mate of mine who was previously an active member of the Socialist Party. He even knew Joe Higgins well, although recently he no longer bothers with the party and it all these days.

I asked him what did he think of the ruck on O'Connell St over Blairs book signing. He just said he felt the whole thing was a joke and the people there are hypocrites for protesting about Blair being a terrorist while they were standing shoulder to shoulder with 32SM, Republican Sinn Fein and Eirigi.

The impression I got from him is that these days protests of this kind have been taken over by extremists and professional bullies.

You know you're on the losing side when even Joe Higgins supporters think you're a loon.

OhNoYouDidn't

Ren2k7 wrote: »

(Looks over shoulder for secret police) LOL jk..

Seriously though, back on topic. I was talking to a mate of mine who was previously an active member of the Socialist Party. He even knew Joe Higgins well, although recently he no longer bothers with the party and it all these days.

I asked him what did he think of the ruck on O'Connell St over Blairs book signing. He just said he felt the whole thing was a joke and the people there are hypocrites for protesting about Blair being a terrorist while they were standing shoulder to shoulder with 32SM, Republican Sinn Fein and Eirigi.

The impression I got from him is that these days protests of this kind have been taken over by extremists and professional bullies.

You know you're on the losing side when even Joe Higgins supporters think you're a loon.

I think you should look up what the Socialist Party line on the troubles was, it has more to do with point scoring against Republicans than any opinion on the protest.

sink

To all those supporting the disruptive protesters and celebrating Tony Blair's decision to cancel the London book signing, try seeing your action through a different lens.

It so happens that the protesters and their supporters are a small minority, as such they seem to feel justified in throwing their weight around, causing disruption and denying different viewpoints from a free hearing. However what would happen if the majority acted in the same manner? Say all center ground social democrats in this country decided to pelt socialists and nationalists with shoes, bottles and eggs whenever they tried to hold any sort of gathering. Would that not be viewed as oppression?

It seems to me some view the difference between justifiable disruptive protest and oppression of a minority as simply a matter of scale.

Mr.Micro

sink wrote: »

To all those supporting the disruptive protesters and celebrating Tony Blair's decision to cancel the London book signing, try seeing your action through a different lens.

It so happens that the protesters and their supporters are a small minority, as such they seem to feel justified in throwing their weight around, causing disruption and denying different viewpoints from a free hearing. However what would happen if the majority acted in the same manner? Say all center ground social democrats in this country decided to pelt socialists and nationalists with shoes, bottles and eggs whenever they tried to hold any sort of gathering. Would that not be viewed as oppression?

It seems to me some view the difference between justifiable disruptive protest and oppression of a minority as simply a matter of scale.

Ordinarily what you say makes sense, but we are talking about soaked in blood and death and WMD Blair here who had a say for 10 years and was certainly not weighed down by conventions of a UN mandate or cash for questions etc, and escaped justice. Next it will be the affable Robert Mugabe with his bedtime novel. As far as I am concerned Blair has said and done enough.

OhNoYouDidn't

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Ordinarily what you say makes sense, but we are talking about soaked in blood and death and WMD Blair here who had a say for 10 years and was certainly not weighed down by conventions of a UN mandate or cash for questions etc, and escaped justice. Next it will be the affable Robert Mugabe with his bedtime novel. As far as I am concerned Blair has said and done enough.

Its a false equivalence to suggest middle of the road political beliefs being suppressed is the same as a non national doing a business transaction being disrupted.