Shoes and Eggs pelted at Tony Blair in Dublin

Bullseye1

Mister men wrote: »

This is good news. Some folk have a backbone in our country. Imagine that.

People can have a backbone but when it comes with stupidy its dangerous.:D

sponsoredwalk

Wertz wrote: »

Back on topic; reports on radio news this morning that shoes being thrown may have been a slight exaggeration...it seems a single pair of flip flops were the foot wear in question. :rolleyes:

Yeah I suspected as much but if you read back along this thread you'll see
how spin is used to lead the sheep to the conclusions our dear leaders want
us to believe.

Don't think, the newspapers will do that for you :rolleyes:

sponsoredwalk

galwayrush wrote: »

What exactly did they achieve?

What would they have achieved staying at home?

Wertz

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What would they have achieved staying at home?

Some poor girl might still have her footwear...and everyone would be having omelettes for breakfast.

King Felix

Wertz wrote: »

Some poor girl might still have her footwear...and everyone would be having omelettes for breakfast.

Exactly. There's people starving in Africa and all these selfish fuckwits can do is chuck foodstuff around like there's no tomorrow.

galwayrush

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What would they have achieved staying at home?

Nothing less :rolleyes:

sponsoredwalk

So in other words it's bad for people to go out to express their opinion, to let
a man know what they think of him & what he stands for, to let the world
know that we don't take kindly to people who are apparently responsible
for mass murder based on faulty evidence.

That is the logic of your arguments, unless I'm mistaken.

dan719

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Here is another ignorant post. It is certain that there are many who feign concern for issues of global justice simply in order to feel superior to others. But that in itself does not invalidate concern for issues of global justice, nor does it mean that it is impossible to genuinely care about global injustice, nor does it mean that everyone who opposes the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is just looking to mount the "moral high horse."

Honestly, reactions like this convince me that a lot of support for global injustice comes out of the mistaken sense that those who oppose it are telling you off. It isn't about "moral high horses." People don't have a problem with rapists and murderers simply so they can feel superior to everyone else. They have a problem with them because rape and murder are bad things that everyone ought to have a problem with. So are undeclared wars of choice pursued on false pretexts in remote lands with unnecessary civilian casualties and dubious strategic gains. So are individual acts illegal by international laws on the conduct of war. Somebody who opposes such acts is not on a "moral high horse." They are simply being moral.

Nobody who seriously cares about global injustice is unaware, or needs to be told, about the complicity of Western populations in global injustice. It is one of the primary motivations for activism - that a global status quo is perpetuated in our name - that actions are made in our name - that we all share responsibility for the injustices in the world - that our names are sullied through the actions of the governments that represent us - and that we have a greater chance of alleviating those injustices through domestic and international activism than the victims.

Concern about these issues is certainly a reason to donate a sizable portion of income to the alleviation of world poverty, as many do, but that in itself doesn't abrogate the responsibility to agitate for systematic change in the actions of states, especially those for whose actions we are responsible, or to defend the ideals of global justice. There isn't anything hypocritical about living in the West, and also opposing an unjust Western hegemony at the expense of the majority of the world's population. You might find it troubling being told that you might be complicit, in your indifference, in war crimes the other side of the world, but you can't just shut somebody up by yelling "tu quoque" and imploring us to become aid workers. If we have a point, there's nothing illegitimate about voicing it, or advocating it.

Your final comment just seems unlikely to me. It looks more like you're trying to get a rise than make any real point, seeing as the rationale at work there would justify any armed incursion, as long as the aggressor was strong enough to win. Justice is not the will of the stronger.

Eh,yes there is. You can't reap the benefits of "western hegemony" to enjoy a higher quality of life, and then bitch about the same. I'll accept your points when you live the same quality of life as someone is Sub Saharan Africa. Until then STFU.

I don't find it remotely troubling tbh.

There is no such thing as justice in International Relations. The absence of any World Police Force means it simply is "will of the stronger".

galwayrush

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So in other words it's bad for people to go out to express their opinion, to let
a man know what they think of him & what he stands for, to let the world
know that we don't take kindly to people who are apparently responsible
for mass murder based on faulty evidence.

That is the logic of your arguments, unless I'm mistaken.

No, my argument is, i don't think a mob mentality is a proper means of expressing an opinion, it seems pathetically ironic when so called peace activists try to resort to violence to proclaim their peaceful message.

sponsoredwalk

King Felix wrote: »

Exactly. There's people starving in Africa and all these selfish fuckwits can do is chuck foodstuff around like there's no tomorrow.

Seriously???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Why not ask your government why they'd rather pay farmers to NOT
make food when they could pay those farmers to make the same food &
send it over to those starving Africans you've chosen to use in your
argument?

I think by the time we sent the eggs off to Africa that people chose to
buy for their own personal use they'd be gone off, but our dear leader's
could construct things so those friends of yours could eat. Why aren't you
starting a thread on this topic? Why aren't you of digging a well for drinking
water? Their are many semi-related things I can use to attack your
argument, does it give what I've said any validity? I think thinking before
we reply is the best method for a constructive conversation here instead
of insults directed at people who do something.

sponsoredwalk

galwayrush wrote: »

No, my argument is, i don't think a mob mentality is a proper means of expressing an opinion, it seems pathetically ironic when so called peace activists try to resort to violence to proclaim their peaceful message.

So in other words you've happily tarred everyone with one brush as going
there just to start some trouble & throw shoes & eggs. Do you see any
contradiction with this outlook when you see posters in this very thread
say that the events on the ground there were very different to what
the media has spun? I don't think a single shoe is justification enough to
condemn a crowd as being violent, do you? I don't think a few people
throwing eggs gives someone, who wants to be honest, enough reason
to say that those without eggs were also violent. It's a very dishonest
thing to do to label the actions of hundreds of people as being cohorts
with the actions of a few people carried away with their emotions.
Were 3 people not arrested? Were the troublemakers taken away?
Still we label the protest what the media tells us to think, are we
thinking for ourselves yet when we miss obvious logical steps like
the above when analyzing what happened yesterday?

There's nothing crazy about what I've written above, I'm sure you've
thought through all of these options, and hopefully more, and will be
able to convince me why you think it fit to label a whole accumulation
of people as doing what just a few did. I'm expectant of this new feat
of logic & can't wait because I seriously can't see a connection...

These people wanted to get their message across to this man, to let him
& the world know what they think of him.
Why did they try a citizens arrest? For fun? I bet you'll certainly spin it
that way...

Mike 1972

galwayrush wrote: »

Many Kurdish parents were upset at the deliberate murder of their kids under Saddam's regime......

Many Kurdish parents are upset at the deliberate murder of their kids under the Turkish regime.

But its a NATO country so **** them ?

King Felix

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Seriously???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Why not ask your government why they'd rather pay farmers to NOT
make food when they could pay those farmers to make the same food &
send it over to those starving Africans you've chosen to use in your
argument?

I think by the time we sent the eggs off to Africa that people chose to
buy for their own personal use they'd be gone off, but our dear leader's
could construct things so those friends of yours could eat. Why aren't you
starting a thread on this topic? Why aren't you of digging a well for drinking
water? Their are many semi-related things I can use to attack your
argument, does it give what I've said any validity?

No, jokingly/sarcastically. It's still AH, remember?

It was in response to the joking comment preceding mine and a parody of some of the right-wing comments throughout the thread.
Flick back through the thread. I've been thanking the leftie/commies throughout.

Jeboa Safari

galwayrush wrote: »

What exactly did they achieve?

They achieved in publicizing Tony Blairs book around the world for free, so now more people will buy it. The irony

Clawdeeus

Typical group of self righteous zeolots, whos opinion about any number of international conflicts I could guess based purely on their behaviour and affiliation to one or more of these groups. Anything that happens or dosent happen fits into their paradigm for the world, without any analasys or critical thinking.

This childishness is very much in keeping with their fanatical attitude.

They would have gained much more respect from me (and most other right thinking folk) if they had stook to chanting and marching.

Nodin

Sheeps wrote: »

Tony Blair on the late late show was pretty good. Regardless of whether there were weapons in Iraq or not, with the information given at the time the decision to involve Britain in Iraq was a rational decision.

As I've illustrated earlier, there was insufficient information to justify a war. Even today, from the former head of the British Army....

There was also growing focus on the intelligence that underpinned the case for war with Iraq. This has been well documented by the Butler Inquiry, but my abiding recollection of the intelligence to which I was privy is just how thin it was. The UK’s case for war was based on the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, as regime change was, apparently, not an objective that the UK could support, at least officially. But I found the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction most uncompelling, and could only assume that the really key stuff was kept for the eyes of the most senior people. But who were they? I was seeing the intelligence as the Assistant Chief because periodically I stood in for Mike Walker at the chiefs of staff meetings. So if the chiefs were not seeing the killer intelligence, who was – if it actually existed at all?

(my bold)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7982262/If-British-armed-forces-chiefs-werent-seeing-intelligence-who-was.html

sponsoredwalk

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Typical group ... whos opinion about any number of international conflicts I could guess based purely on their behaviour and affiliation to one or more of these groups.

I like how you managed to turn a general observation about humanity into an
insult because you assume it's their ideology that tells them to believe
x, y or z and not their own beliefs that tells them to join group p, q or r.

You also seem to think it's fair to label a whole crowd of 200+ people
based on the actions of a few of them, I seriously don't think that this
is an action right thinking folk partake in, unless you mean right-wing
thinking folk, because it's stock trade for them to come out with gut
reactions based on primal urges without critical thinking, read this thread
to find examples...

91011

Funny how all these protest have the same people at them.

How many of the 300 would be able to point out Iraq on a map.
How many have studied anything about Iraqi history and the pain and suffering imposed on Iraqi people by Sadam Hussein.

The 2 main groups in the protest were

32csc - a sinn fein / IRA split group

and

eirgi - a sinn fein / IRA split group.

Guess what - both of these group have connections to 30 years of murder in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland & Britain.

And they dare to make comment about a war!!!

Stupid people devoid of basic intelligence.

Clawdeeus

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I like how you managed to turn a general observation about humanity into an
insult because you assume it's their ideology that tells them to believe
x, y or z and not their own beliefs that tells them to join group p, q or r.

You also seem to think it's fair to label a whole crowd of 200+ people
based on the actions of a few of them, I seriously don't think that this
is an action right thinking folk partake in, unless you mean right-wing
thinking folk, because it's stock trade for them to come out with gut
reactions based on primal urges without critical thinking, read this thread
to find examples...

An observation about humanity that is applied in such a way that leads them to conclusions about conflicts and issues entirely in keeping with the groups that they are affiliated with? Sounds like the definition of an ideology to me.

It is a generalisation, but Im going to take a guess at their opinions on Cuba-US relations, the Palestinian conflict, globalisation, their position on tax rates, green issues, capitalism, intervention in Kosovo and any number of other stuff. I could do the same with some right wing groups, and be equally dismissive of their warped view of reality.

Its true, its sad that a handful of people can ruin the image of a rally I would (in part) support. But such a small group of people (200?), organised well should have a little more control of the situation. And trying to rush Easons afterwards? Really?

Mike 1972

91011 wrote: »

The 2 main groups in the protest were
32csc - a sinn fein / IRA split group and eirgi - a sinn fein / IRA split group..

While your point about the hypocricy of IRA affiliated/supporting groups participating in/attempting to hijack anti war protests is a perfecly valid one what evidence have you to indicate that the majority of protestors were members of such outfits ?

Ive attended antiwar protests (Hillsborough) where a Shinner spokesperson (Mc Laughlin) was practically booed off the platform. :cool:

Clawdeeus

91011 wrote: »

Funny how all these protest have the same people at them.

How many of the 300 would be able to point out Iraq on a map.
How many have studied anything about Iraqi history and the pain and suffering imposed on Iraqi people by Sadam Hussein.

The 2 main groups in the protest were

32csc - a sinn fein / IRA split group

and

eirgi - a sinn fein / IRA split group.

Guess what - both of these group have connections to 30 years of murder in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland & Britain.

And they dare to make comment about a war!!!

Stupid people devoid of basic intelligence.

And the Ireland-Palestine solidarity movement, which has remained blissfully silent as Hamas promises to continue attacks on Israel with the explicit intent of derailing peace talks.

Violence tends to be alright for these people, it just has to be done by the right groups.

Hrududu

All they achieved was free publicity for Blair's book. Its always the same eejits involved in these things. As soon as I heard about it I thought "I bet that Richard Boyd Barrett is involved" Sure enough up he pops on the news.

I just think its gas that groups protesting war would turn to violence to make their point. Fair enough its just a few eggs and a pair of flip flops but still.

Slideshowbob

Wouldnt it be more worthwhile to protest about getting current government out?

Foxtrol

Wertz wrote: »

Wait...they knew that Iraq wouldn't thave the military capability to hold out....but they also "knew" that the Iraqis had weapons capable of mass destruction? Here was a country that at one point in the sexed up UNSCOM report could launch missiles or UAV full of biological chemical agents capable of striking the UK or the eastern seaboard of the US.

It was quite ironic on the day the first tank batallions rolled in hearing the hushed murmurs of imbedded reporters in the convoys speaking of the fear of a bio/chem strike (I have no doubt the troops and the reporters believed it was a possibility BTW) and the oohs and aahs back in the studio.

Here was a country that was supposedly capable of long range strikes against US/UK, unable to launch even one scud with a sarin warhead as a show of force. You think if they'd have had them that they wouldn't have launched? Why hide the strike capability any longer in the face of inevitable military defeat?

Have a google of the term "conventional warfare" which I used. I'm sure there was a massive fear amongst the coalition forces that they would be attacked by nerve gas. Believing you have the military capability to defeat someone and fearing that you could be attacked by WMD's are not mutually exclusive.

Foxtrol

Clawdeeus wrote: »

And the Ireland-Palestine solidarity movement, which has remained blissfully silent as Hamas promises to continue attacks on Israel with the explicit intent of derailing peace talks.

Violence tends to be alright for these people, it just has to be done by the right groups.

Ah yes but that doesn't fit into their Western Governments/Leaders are monsters narrative.

FionnMatthew

dan719 wrote: »

Eh,yes there is. You can't reap the benefits of "western hegemony" to enjoy a higher quality of life, and then bitch about the same. I'll accept your points when you live the same quality of life as someone is Sub Saharan Africa. Until then STFU.

I don't find it remotely troubling tbh.

There is no such thing as justice in International Relations. The absence of any World Police Force means it simply is "will of the stronger".

This is a thunderously stupid argument. For one thing, even if there was an allegation of hypocrisy, hypocrisy doesn't invalidate an argument. An argument is either right or it's wrong. You can still allege hypocrisy, but you should still be compelled to accept or reject the points on their own merit, and not on the irrelevant matter of whether their exponent is a hypocrite.

But more substantially, people in countries on the UN list of least developed countries aren't deprived of the resources they need daily to live because you and I are not deprived of basic resources. Largely, they suffer because of trade sanctions imposed by economic powers for a variety of reasons, unconstrained conflicts supported, orchestrated or encouraged by Western powers, the exploitation of corrupt domestic governments by Western corporations which face no sanctions for misconduct, or the deliberate strategic sabotage of the national economy, as happened with Haiti.

The most effective advocacy for a meaningful change for the world's poor is an opposition to these systematic features of the world's organization. I am not a rich person, I do not make frivolous purchases, or live wastefully, and I do not support an appetite for the needless luxuries of commodity capitalism, but it is not necessary to deprive myself of basic foodstuffs or modest needs in order to have some moral authority in opposing unnecessary world poverty. Any more than it is necessary to infect myself with HIV in order to be able to say that it's awful how many people have HIV, or become the victim of domestic battery so that I can be taken seriously when I say that people shouldn't be beaten up by their family members.

Please inform yourself: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty

As for your position on world justice, I think you've backed into a lonely corner. You agree as to the nature of the acts at stake here. You condone monstrous acts out of a sense of moral powerlessness, proudly flaunting your abrogation of moral objection to them. You are, in effect, claiming to be a proud monster.

There are coherent and moral arguments for the things you are defending, and they deserve attention, consideration, and discussion. But when I challenge the conservative impulse, and find underneath instead a raw delight in pretending to be the sort of morally broken creature that "offends lefties," well, I think my job is done. The only people who tend to agree with such people are the other people who aren't taking the issues seriously, and are merely interested in politics because they like winding others up.

EmacB

The protesters were a load of loony hippies. In one of the videos sky news played you could here them shouting police brutality! honestly like the police were doing nothing wrong theyre just a load of **** stirrers.

Gigiwagga

91011 wrote: »

Funny how all these protest have the same people at them.

How many of the 300 would be able to point out Iraq on a map.
How many have studied anything about Iraqi history and the pain and suffering imposed on Iraqi people by Sadam Hussein.

The 2 main groups in the protest were

32csc - a sinn fein / IRA split group

and

eirgi - a sinn fein / IRA split group.

Guess what - both of these group have connections to 30 years of murder in Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland & Britain.

And they dare to make comment about a war!!!

Stupid people devoid of basic intelligence.

Uhh, maybe it's time for you to do a wee bit of research on the recent history on Iraq before you come out with this sort of waffle.

Oh and that's right the IRA etc invaded the republic and oppressed us all for eons (not that I agree with the IRA's policies in any shape or form) But while you're at it maybe do a little Irish history too. And some research on partisan/insurgent groups worldwide, usually engage in attacks on invading forces into their country, but it suits western media to describe these people as terrorists because western media is (largely) on the side of the invading forces. While you're at it maybe do a little research on the meaning of the word 'terror', quite simple really.

Gigiwagga

Hrududu wrote: »

All they achieved was free publicity for Blair's book. Its always the same eejits involved in these things. As soon as I heard about it I thought "I bet that Richard Boyd Barrett is involved" Sure enough up he pops on the news.

I just think its gas that groups protesting war would turn to violence to make their point. Fair enough its just a few eggs and a pair of flip flops but still.

I think it's sad that the vast majority of Irish people are apathetic enough to sit on their arses at home these days telling themselves that it has nothing to do with them. That the slaughter of innocent people has nothing to do with them. Tell me how does that feel for you, not giving a s*** about other people, how does that disassociation feel when you try to impart your moral values to your children.
Do you tell your children that, what ever they do they mustn't protest, because your neighbors might think them radical commies or something.

Jesus, that's sad.

Gigiwagga

EmacB wrote: »

The protesters were a load of loony hippies. In one of the videos sky news played you could here them shouting police brutality! honestly like the police were doing nothing wrong theyre just a load of **** stirrers.

And you are what exactly ? describe yourself for the crack. What were you doing that was more important that protesting the presence of a mass murderer in our country. Watching a game on the telly maybe.

And I hope the British come out in force to protest the Popes presence in their country, another scumbag IMO.

OutlawPete

Muslims countries should learn from this.

Forget your barbaric practices such as stoning and the like.

If you really want to punish people and let them know that you disprove of their actions ..

Then just do so with a little humanity and use shoes, eggs and half full plastic Carlsberg bottles, like a normal civilized country.

Nodin

It has to be said again that the amount of stuff thrown appears to have been minimal....One poxy sandal on Al Jazeeras footage....Surely the wimmin would be trippin over shoes they could have brought to chuck....

Táck

EmacB wrote: »

load of loony hippies

EmacB wrote: »

honestly like

!

Overheal

Gigiwagga wrote: »

And you are what exactly ? describe yourself for the crack. What were you doing that was more important that protesting the presence of a mass murderer in our country. Watching a game on the telly maybe.

And I hope the British come out in force to protest the Popes presence in their country, another scumbag IMO.

Why aren't you out throwing Eggs and Shoes at a banker somewhere?

ejmaztec

Overheal wrote: »

Why aren't you out throwing Eggs and Shoes at a banker somewhere?

He can't get a good enough arm-swing to make them reach Barbados.:(

Gigiwagga

Overheal wrote: »

Why aren't you out throwing Eggs and Shoes at a banker somewhere?

Which one, there are only so many eggs.

Scanlas The 2nd

I think a lot of these protesters aren't really doing it because of the war issues. I think they want any excuse to vent there anger at someone in a position of power. They are protesting because they have low self esteem. America and Britain represent people of higher status in their own lives and it makes them feel great to make these protests. They just want any excuse. Why don't you get so many protesters protesting the other countries such as Iran, the answer is that wouldn't make them feel better about themselves.

Foxtrol

Gigiwagga wrote: »

I think it's sad that the vast majority of Irish people are apathetic enough to sit on their arses at home these days telling themselves that it has nothing to do with them. That the slaughter of innocent people has nothing to do with them. Tell me how does that feel for you, not giving a s*** about other people, how does that disassociation feel when you try to impart your moral values to your children.
Do you tell your children that, what ever they do they mustn't protest, because your neighbors might think them radical commies or something.

Jesus, that's sad.

I'd rather tell my children that the slaughter of anyone is a tragedy and to not only become outraged when Western Governments do it while ignoring the atrocities of people they stand side by side with. I'd also impart on them that if they are going to protest to act in a dignified manner so that people will listen to their point of view, as acting like a yobbish mob does nothing but belittle their cause.

KeithAFC

Can't please everyone all of the time. That was Tonys problem. Tried to please everyone.

dan719

FionnMatthew wrote: »

This is a thunderously stupid argument. For one thing, even if there was an allegation of hypocrisy, hypocrisy doesn't invalidate an argument. An argument is either right or it's wrong. You can still allege hypocrisy, but you should still be compelled to accept or reject the points on their own merit, and not on the irrelevant matter of whether their exponent is a hypocrite.

But more substantially, people in countries on the UN list of least developed countries aren't deprived of the resources they need daily to live because you and I are not deprived of basic resources. Largely, they suffer because of trade sanctions imposed by economic powers for a variety of reasons, unconstrained conflicts supported, orchestrated or encouraged by Western powers, the exploitation of corrupt domestic governments by Western corporations which face no sanctions for misconduct, or the deliberate strategic sabotage of the national economy, as happened with Haiti.

The most effective advocacy for a meaningful change for the world's poor is an opposition to these systematic features of the world's organization. I am not a rich person, I do not make frivolous purchases, or live wastefully, and I do not support an appetite for the needless luxuries of commodity capitalism, but it is not necessary to deprive myself of basic foodstuffs or modest needs in order to have some moral authority in opposing unnecessary world poverty. Any more than it is necessary to infect myself with HIV in order to be able to say that it's awful how many people have HIV, or become the victim of domestic battery so that I can be taken seriously when I say that people shouldn't be beaten up by their family members.

Please inform yourself: http://www.globalissues.org/issue/6/world-hunger-and-poverty

As for your position on world justice, I think you've backed into a lonely corner. You agree as to the nature of the acts at stake here. You condone monstrous acts out of a sense of moral powerlessness, proudly flaunting your abrogation of moral objection to them. You are, in effect, claiming to be a proud monster.

There are coherent and moral arguments for the things you are defending, and they deserve attention, consideration, and discussion. But when I challenge the conservative impulse, and find underneath instead a raw delight in pretending to be the sort of morally broken creature that "offends lefties," well, I think my job is done. The only people who tend to agree with such people are the other people who aren't taking the issues seriously, and are merely interested in politics because they like winding others up.

Hypocrisy most certainly weakens a position in a normative argument. At the end of the day, everyone makes a value judgement on whether or not these issues are important. Why should I respect the opinion of someone who complains about suffering, but is quite happy to reap the rewards of the same.

To claim that the style of living in the west is not due in part, to the exploitation of those in other countries is economically retarded. We benefit from cheap (ish) oil, cheap mass produced electronics and so on. If you don't like it, throw away your pc, and start wearing hemp you grow at home.

The importance of trade sanctions is also overstated in economics. Trade is irrelevant to a country where civil war is ripe, and all economic resources are plundered to provide a constant source of weapons. It is also highly unlikely that the de facto position on trading regulations is going to change anytime soon. The WTO is powerless, and as a result of the recession, protectionist measures are again finding favour with national governments. Of course, we could all open our trade barriers, and all low level manurfacturing jobs would last all of ten minutes.

I don't condone actions out of a moral powerlessness. Rather, I accept that the actions of countries such as the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, are limited only be powers of retaliation. There is no world police to stop them, so why would they stop? Pragmatism is not the same as winding people up.

For similar reasons, I strongly support the US ensuring it does not end up being overtaken by the Chinese. At the end of the day, one country loosely represents our way of life and morality, the other doesn't.

Gigiwagga

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'd rather tell my children that the slaughter of anyone is a tragedy and to not only become outraged when Western Governments do it while ignoring the atrocities of people they stand side by side with. I'd also impart on them that if they are going to protest to act in a dignified manner so that people will listen to their point of view, as acting like a yobbish mob does nothing but belittle their cause.

Most of the protesters behaved in a dignified manner, but you decided yourself they(ALL) were behaving like a yobbish mob, twisting reality to suit your own misinformed viewpoint, isn't that what Blair and Bush did ?

'Children be dignified even when your rights are being taken from you, it looks so much nicer on the 6 o'clock news.'

Foxtrol

Gigiwagga wrote: »

Most of the protesters behaved in a dignified manner, but you decided yourself they(ALL) were behaving like a yobbish mob, twisting reality to suit your own misinformed viewpoint, isn't that what Blair and Bush did ?

'Children be dignified even when your rights are being taken from you, it looks so much nicer on the 6 o'clock news.'

What misinformed viewpoint? There is irrefutable evidence that the protest yesterday became violent, even if it was due to a few dozen protesters. This destroyed any credibility it had especially as from every picture & video I've seen there was no attempt made by the rest of the protest to stop their actions or even to condemn them.

Its also great the way you completely ignored the half of my comment relating to the hypocrisy of protesters only targeting Western Governments for their wrong doings while conveniently ignoring the atrocities of others to which they are linked.

Owwmykneecap

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Wouldnt it be more worthwhile to protest about getting current government out?

And have you and your ilk ever protested anything.
You'd rather give out about others who have the gall to get off their couch.

Cheap Thrills!

Your woman who did the citizens arrest is an 'actress' it says in the Times today. :rolleyes:

Kates diary entry:
Bought moss green Kagoule with Doddys credit cord
Attended audition for play at the womens resource centre, had bean and lentil casserole and fair trade coffee for lunch, it was EUR45, but hey the lentils were farmed humanely so it was like, totally worth it.
Threw flip-flop at war criminal and did a citizens arrest (security men seemed irritated rather than impressed by me....how weird is that...go figure!)
Got my bessie to interview me for YouTube, forgot to wash my hair, note to self -look deathly pale in yellow, must wear green Kagoule next time.
Set fire to Blairs booky wooky in Doddys barbecue, couldn't resist throwing on some of those yummy sausages but nobody saw so I'm still a veggie.

Yah, satisfactory day. Yay me!

elius

I didn't read the middle section but id love to see the woman who tried to make a citizens arrest on him for war crime's how come these people wouldn't approach Saddam (when alive) and maybe the head of the Terry Taliban who authorised the numerous execution of women and men aswell. They No why BANG. F-ing dimbat :pac::pac::pac:

Millicent

elius wrote: »

I didn't read the middle section but id love to see the woman who tried to make a citizens arrest on him for war crime's how come these people wouldn't approach Saddam (when alive) and maybe the head of the Terry Taliban who authorised the numerous execution of women and men aswell. They No why BANG. F-ing dimbat :pac::pac::pac:

Terry Taliban? Sure what else was he gonna be with a name like that? :pac:

dillo2k10

I didnt read through all of these pages and so someone might have already mentioned this but the reason that the threw shoes at him is because it is the highest insult to throw a shoe at someone in some middle-eastern country

I also want to say that I agree with what they done, I was handed a leaflet the other day about the protest and was going to attend, but I didn't bother

starbelgrade

dillo2k10 wrote: »

I didnt read through all of these pages and so someone might have already mentioned this but the reason that the threw shoes at him is because it is the highest insult to throw a shoe at someone in some middle-eastern country

I'd say they'd be more insulted if they'd a bomb dropped on them by a foreign power.

Toes

Tony Blair went to war in Iraq based on weak, incorrect information. However he went to war with a country whose dictator had been responsible for using chemical weapons on thousands of innocent Kurdish citizens. A country where his son's forces (Fedayeen) are responsible for the beheadings of innocent women.

Tony Blair is a political sheep for following Bush into Iraq, but, that war was going to happen anyway. Would people rather wait for Saddam to launch an attack on his own people or another Despot to take the reigns?

As for Iran, its a war just waiting to happen. Despite any bull**** reports from the country, I would say its highly likely that nuclear weapons are being developed. What else would you expect from a country where the president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. If the nuclear program is legit, then they can let UN and Foreign Inspectors in to see.

As for the protestors those shoulder chewers should be forced to eat raw eggs. Hopefully they contract salmonella and kick it before they get a chance to do this again.

What about the US? Didnt they provide Iraq not only with weapons, but also the knowledge to create further chemical weapons.And what about Afghanistan? Didnt America give weapons to the Mujahideen?

ultain

RobitTV wrote: »

Eggs and shoes have been thrown at the former prime minister Tony Blair as he arrived at a book signing in Dublin.

It happened as he arrived at Easons on O'Connell Street to sign copies of his autobiography.

Activists clashed with Gardai as they tried to push down a security barrier outside the bookshop.

More than 300 people queued from early on Saturday morning to get a book signed.

There is a large police presence in the city and O'Connell Street has been closed to traffic.

Dozens of gardaí have been on duty in O'Connell Street since early this morning and sections of the main thoroughfare are cordoned off to traffic.

It is expected that Mr Blair will remain in Eason until after midday. All proceeds from the book will go to the Royal British Legion.

And the queen on the way an all