Tony Blairs booky wook

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I never said they were law abiding. I said its quite the stretch to call it 'political violence'....

Mr.Micro

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

He is not any old non national...and if he has the neck to go out to peddle his mantra then if he gets jostled or whatever its his own fault knowing that he is not loved by all. What a waste of taxpayers money paying for an private author of fiction to be protected by the Police.....

sink

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.

That is your subjective opinion and is no basis for breaking the law. There are many who think Blair was justified and many more who think he made a difficult decision which may or may not have been wrong but don't consider him to have blood on his hands. Just as there are many who think the socialists and nationalists protesting are wrong but their subjective opinion does not give them the right to assault them or disrupt their activities.

ANarcho-Munk

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.

Again, what is so totalitarian about a protest? If a person is being given a free platform and soapbox in a part of our community and a number of people are at odds with his opinion/agenda should they not be allowed to exercise what little of their voice they have?

It's also worth remembering that Blair is not your average private citizen as you and Denerick et al continue to harp on about. He is an individual in a very unique situation in regard to having a very high profile and has near open access to the media if he so wishes. He also has a huge amount of political power at his disposal in that it is very easy for him to shape public opinion in the position he is in. The protestors and Blair are not on an equal footing and are forced to use far "louder" tactics to even get a microscopic piece of coverage surrounding the issues their raising. Unfortunately though some idiot (or idiots) usually mess up these protests by engaging in petty actions and end up marring the other 90% who are there to protest in good faith.


Blair is a person who has exercised authority and power on the world map and who has immensely influenced the geo-political landscape in a rather controversial manner. He is invovled with the death of about a million innocent people and has displaced far more people than that. He is in large part responsible for the mess people face in the far worse hellhole that is now Iraq. To compare him to Dawkins or Hitchens is totally irrelevant.

sink

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/

Does your association of "marxtards, hippies, and dissidents" with atheism highlight a perceived corollary or is it just a meaningless example. If it's the former I would have to take offence for it highly ignorant to associate atheism with any particular political ideology.

sink

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

Again, what is so totalitarian about a protest? If a person is being given a free platform and soapbox in a part of our community and a number of people are at odds with his opinion/agenda should they not be allowed to exercise what little of their voice they have?

Exercising their voice through peaceful protest, by all means. Exercising their voice by pelting people with eggs, shoes and bottles and storming police line, absolutely not.

ANarcho-Munk

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.

Oh please. A free hearing? He was there to sign books and to fulfill a business contract. And the last I saw he got a very easy free hearing on the Late Late show just the other night. Blair has open access to the media if he so wishes, to infer that Blair can't afford to find a platform for himself where he will have free reign to say what he likes is very naive. On top of that to say that Blair occupies the same social standing as your ordinary Joe Bloggs is totally misjudged. He is a man who has exercised an inordinate amount of political economy on the world stage.


I really don't think your argument of Tony Blair being oppressed stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever. A few eggs and shoes does not = oppression. Every politician knows the risks that come with entering public life and of introducing what may be controversial policies to a wider public. Nevermind about starting an illegitimate war and being a military aggressor on the world stage.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

Oh please. A free hearing? He was there to sign books and to fulfill a business contract. And the last I saw he got a very easy free hearing on the Late Late show just the other night. Blair has open access to the media if he so wishes, to infer that Blair can't afford to find a platform for himself where he will have free reign to say what he likes is very naive. On top of that to say that Blair occupies the same social standing as your ordinary Joe Bloggs is totally misjudged. He is a man who has exercised an inordinate amount of political economy on the world stage.


I really don't think your argument of Tony Blair being oppressed stands up to any scrutiny whatsoever. A few eggs and shoes does not = oppression. Every politician knows the risks that come with entering public life and of introducing what may be controversial policies to a wider public. Nevermind about starting an illegitimate war and being a military aggressor on the world stage.

Again it's down to scale.

Tony Blair is a world figure with a global profile, he can easily get his message out. Therefor if he gets assaulted with eggs, shoes and bottles all well and good.

Poor mister socialist/nationalist is not listened to by anyone but a small select group of followers. He is not paid any attention by the media and hardly anyone knows his name. If he holds a book signing/rally and get's pelted with eggs, bottles and shoes by Tony Blair supporters why would that be wrong?

McDougal

Denerick wrote: »

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.

Are you taking the piss or are you actually this stupid?

Blair started a war based on lies that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Benn on the otherhand is a pacifist. Only an idiot would compare the two.

Darlughda

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As they said on BBC radio 6 all day yesterday:

Tony Blair was greeted with hostile protesters at his book signing in Ireland.....eggs and shoes were thrown

(Sombre, mournfull voice) He was not hit.

McDougal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you have any evidence a bottle was thrown? Show me the footage or at least a picture

ANarcho-Munk

sink wrote: »

Exercising their voice through peaceful protest, by all means. Exercising their voice by pelting people with eggs, shoes and bottles and storming police line, absolutely not.

This is where I agree with you if you read my post carefully. However, as usual, I think there has been quite some sensationalism in the media with regards to it. I really don't think it constitutes fully blown political violence and I think it is silly to call it such. It was just a foolish mis-use of genuine anger. I'd also argue that the objects that were thrown were intended to be symbolic rather than being any genuine concerted effort to cause serious harm.


Look, do you remember when Bertie Aherne (or some other high ranking FFer) got hit by a cream pie in the run-up to a general election? Are you going to classify that as political violence also? Personally I think it would be quite foolish to do so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Revolution9

Originally Posted by Denerick
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.

Is the BNP far enough to the right for you?

Anti-war campaigners and the far-right British National Party said they would stage separate protests on Wednesday at the Waterstone's branch in Piccadilly in central London over Mr Blair's decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Taken from the Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0906/breaking26.html

Blair started a war based on lies that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Benn on the otherhand is a pacifist. Only an idiot would compare the two.

This

McDougal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No I just think it's strange that with all the media and cameras present no one was able to capture a single bottle or egg thrown. Maybe the Irish Times didn't make it up, maybe they just took the word of some sensationalist tabloid hack that eggs were thrown.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

McDougal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not sure the argument of "it was in all the papers therefore it happened" argument would stand up in court. Surely you can find even a picture of one egg thrown?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr.Micro

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A storm in a tea cup and not worth getting away from the point that Blair will benefit from his actions......who says crime does not pay. He loves the attention now that Bully Brown has been kicked out of number 10. In the past few days we have had his warnings /musings on dissidents, Islamists, Climate change, the UK prison system. Just shut up Blair, you had your shot and you failed. He shows his true colours by pulling out of the book signing....yellow.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

McDougal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How is asking for evidence a conspiracy? I was at the protest and saw nothing except a flip flop and a boot being thrown. Who are the eye witnesses to the eggs and bottles being thrown?

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote:

Your claim that this [protest] was not opposed to freedom of speech is destroyed by your use of violence to establish your little point.

It is destroyed even further by the announcement that Blair is to cancel his London signing. The fact that this cancellation was welcomed makes it clear that those protesting and those supporting the protesters are ultimately opposed to Mr Blair exercising his civil rights, such as his freedom to move within the European Union and his freedom to speak. They want to remove, or at least lessen, his ability to utilise those rights.

This is the kind of conditional freedom I am used to seeing amongst Left wing organisations and individuals: you can have freedom to speak as long as you say what we want to hear. This, of course, is no freedom at all.

OhNoYouDidn't

McDougal wrote: »

How is asking for evidence a conspiracy? I was at the protest and saw nothing except a flip flop and a boot being thrown. Who are the eye witnesses to the eggs and bottles being thrown?

I was there as well and didn't see (or hear mention of) any eggs or bottles.

A Dub in Glasgo

It has been proven time and time again that most of the stuff that passes for reporting in the media is the same source relayed on therefore if that source is wrong....

OhNoYouDidn't

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It is destroyed even further by the announcement that Blair is to cancel his London signing. The fact that this cancellation was welcomed makes it clear that those protesting and those supporting the protesters are ultimately opposed to Mr Blair exercising his civil rights, such as his freedom to move within the European Union and his freedom to speak. They want to remove, or at least lessen, his ability to utilise those rights.

This is the kind of conditional freedom I am used to seeing amongst Left wing organisations and individuals: you can have freedom to speak as long as you say what we want to hear. This, of course, is no freedom at all.

The crude counter argument to that is Fcuk him, he is a war criminal and if he has to run a gauntlet everywhere he goes, that's the consequences of his actions he has to deal with.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The crude counter argument to that is Fcuk him, he is a war criminal and if he has to run a gauntlet everywhere he goes, that's the consequences of his actions he has to deal with.

No offence, but did you have nothing better to do that day?

You felt you had to go along and be part of a violent mob as they attempted to assault a former British Prime Minister in our capital city?

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

No offence, but did you have nothing better to do that day?

You felt you had to go along and be part of a violent mob as they attempted to assault a former British Prime Minister in our capital city?

Are you Joe Duffy?

There was no violence, no attempt to assault. Give over with the hysterics.

A war criminal attempted to use O'Connell St to repair his destroyed legacy. I went along to protest against him and his abuse of Ireland for that end.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are you Joe Duffy?

There was no violence, no attempt to assault. Give over with the hysterics.

A war criminal attempted to use O'Connell St to repair his destroyed legacy. I went along to protest against him and his abuse of Ireland for that end.

There was no assault because 100 guards stood in the way. Your mates in the 32CSM would have beaten him to a pulp if they had got their way.

And I'm sure you would have swaggered on to boards.ie saying 'he had it coming, stinking war criminal' Then you would have proceeded to contextualise the murder of a former Prime Minister by saying the 32CSM members grew up in a tough background and had 'feelings' and so on.

Eliot Rosewater

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The crude counter argument to that is Fcuk him

That's not a counter argument. That's just you proving my point. You're seeking to create a notion of conditional freedom whereby members of the Workers Socialist Party and the 32CSM get to decide who gets freedom and who doesn't. It's a bloody terrifying prospect.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

There was no assault because 100 guards stood in the way. Your mates in the 32CSM would have beaten him to a pulp if they had got their way.

And I'm sure you would have swaggered on to boards.ie saying 'he had it coming, stinking war criminal' Then you would have proceeded to contextualise the murder of a former Prime Minister by saying the 32CSM members grew up in a tough background and had 'feelings' and so on.

My mates?

Like your mates in the UFF and NAMBLA?

OhNoYouDidn't

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's not a counter argument. That's just you proving my point. You're seeking to create a notion of conditional freedom whereby members of the Workers Socialist Party and the 32CSM get to decide who gets freedom and who doesn't. It's a bloody terrifying prospect.

He freely entered Easons, signed his book and left. The object of the excercise was not to attack him or stop him from going about his nefarious business, it was to protest at him and his attempt to use Dublin in this manner.

You have gone all Denerick on this one too

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

My mates?

Like your mates in the UFF and NAMBLA?

That comment does not deserve a response.

A Dub in Glasgo

Denerick wrote: »

There was no assault because 100 guards stood in the way. Your mates in the 32CSM would have beaten him to a pulp if they had got their way.

And I'm sure you would have swaggered on to boards.ie saying 'he had it coming, stinking war criminal' Then you would have proceeded to contextualise the murder of a former Prime Minister by saying the 32CSM members grew up in a tough background and had 'feelings' and so on.

If were are now in the realms of fantasy scenario planning, I counter that Blair would have called in the stealth bombers and obliterated ONYD and every bystander in the centre of Dublin. Job done.

Eliot Rosewater

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There was no violence, no attempt to assault. Give over with the hysterics.

The Ministry of Truth can confirm this. In a few moments time the Irish Times' online archives will have been duly amended. According to Big Brother it was actually Blair who threw the shoe at the protester. Not that I ever thought it was the other way around, of course.

McDougal

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's not a counter argument. That's just you proving my point. You're seeking to create a notion of conditional freedom whereby members of the Workers Socialist Party and the 32CSM get to decide who gets freedom and who doesn't. It's a bloody terrifying prospect.

Yes that would be terrifying if that's what the SWP were trying to achieve. Thankfully they are not. I do think it's terrifying that religious extremist nuts like Bush and Blair were able to decide how many live and die though.

Wolfe Tone

Denerick wrote: »

That comment does not deserve a response.

You are a part of the north american marlon brando lookalikes association?

Coillte_Bhoy

I despise Blair and have no problem with the protesters, apart from the few who were throwing missiles but i think it's an unfortunate turn of events that he feels he cant give a book signing in London.

OhNoYouDidn't

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The Ministry of Truth can confirm this. In a few moments time the Irish Times' online archives will have been duly amended. According to Big Brother it was actually Blair who threw the shoe at the protester. Not that I ever thought it was the other way around, of course.

I'm simply saying that there was no violence at the protest, no eggs thrown, no bottles thrown.

You are painting a very different picture to what actually happened in both action and intent.

Mr.Micro

McDougal wrote: »

How is asking for evidence a conspiracy? I was at the protest and saw nothing except a flip flop and a boot being thrown. Who are the eye witnesses to the eggs and bottles being thrown?

The intelligence dossier on that needs to be doctored.....quick get Alistair Campbell to sex it up:D

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

McDougal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Orwell must be turning in his grave with all these right wing nuts quoting him. If he was alive he would have been on the protest against Blair with us. It's incredibley ironic that you are using the 1984 example when it is you who blindly accepts the word of the mass media despite there being no evidence to back it up.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A number of people who were actually there say the same thing - there was no missiles beyond the symbolic sandals. There is also a lack of any documentary evidence that there was missiles thrown.

Just because the Gardai briefed the media that it happened does not make it so.

See also Baily and DuPlantier for more proof of this.

McDougal

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

I despise Blair and have no problem with the protesters, apart from the few who were throwing missiles but i think it's an unfortunate turn of events that he feels he cant give a book signing in London.

It's unfortunate that many people in Iraq can't do book signings either. They had their arms blown off you see.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

McDougal

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The guards telling lies? Hahaha Never!

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, yes they do. Unless that was sarcasm at which point I have to look for the 'are you for real' smilie

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

simplistic2

Yeah theres a reason they dont use lie detectors in court...and its not because they are afraid that members of the public may be wrongly convicted...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.