Shoes and Eggs pelted at Tony Blair in Dublin

Gigiwagga

Foxtrol wrote: »

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.

Therefore they are all guilty by association.

When I last checked we live in a western society and these people; Bush/Blair tell us they act in our interest, on our behalf, as western powers, and you are cool with that. I didn't notice Pol Pot or Robert Mugabe etc coming to Dublin to flog their books, or any other scumbag leader. Yes there's a long list of them, that doesn't mean Tony Blair isn't one of them, don't be so narrow minded.

Donkey Oaty

As far as I know, Robert Mugabe is banned, in principle, from travelling to the EU. Citizen's arrests have been attempted on him on previous visits.

Pol Pot is dead.

I'm not sure what point I'm making here, but what the hell.

Gigiwagga

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

As far as I know, Robert Mugabe is banned, in principle, from travelling to the EU. Citizen's arrests have been attempted on him on previous visits.

Pol Pot is dead.

I'm not sure what point I'm making here, but what the hell.

Whoaa wha Pol Pot is dead !! er...oh man where have I been? But hey if you try and THINK really hard about it just maybe you'll get my point re the comment I was responding to.

Robert Mugabe is banned, damned right the pond scum is.

And if he magically appeared flogging his memoirs in Easons I wonder would there be much protesting, you betcha.

Donkey Oaty

Gigiwagga wrote: »

But hey if you try and THINK really hard about it just maybe you'll get my point re the comment I was responding to.

I tried! Honest!

kraggy

Nodin wrote: »

I watched the interview. He linked Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Thats an outrageous, baseless, utterly disproven lie. He also advocated military action against Iran.

He didn't. There was absolutley no link made between the two last night.

kevmck

i don't think its because he was a british leader that people really dislike him id say its got to do more with the fact that hes a lying murdering hipocrite and he was the head of a very powerful country who like to through there weight around for there own gain and just because he dresses well and hes a good puctuated speaker doesn't make him a good politican, how come as soon as u voice ur opinions about a english politcan who is obviosly corrupt ur branded as a republican? can u not just be a humanatarian..

Sisko

This thread is more embarrassing than those protesters. The war in Iraq is unforgivable.

Damn straight people should be angry about it. And damn straight that they get to express that.


I can't believe so many on here support it.

General Zod

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.

Don't assume that just because they had a banner they were the main groups who made up the crowd. There was a whole lot of people protesting that wouldn't have an affiliation to either of these groups. A hell of a lot of individuals who disagree with the war in Iraq were out on Saturday.

And to be honest, the "violence" wasn't more than a few people pushing at a barracade and the gardai pushing them back.

Nodin

Toes wrote: »

Tony Blair went to war in Iraq based on weak, incorrect information.

As has been illustrated numerous times during the thread, the information he went in on did not make a case for war. The idea that he was misled is letting him off the hook.

Nodin

kraggy wrote: »

He didn't. There was absolutley no link made between the two last night.

Yes, yes he did. He mentioned it as a justification for the Iraq war.

Hrududu

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 love to know where you got all that from what I posted.

King Felix

I see the accessory to murder may cancel the English signing of his penned rationalisations, because of the protests here last weekend.

Good enough for him and well done to the Irish protestors.

GeorgeCostanza

RobitTV wrote: »

Those people throwing shoes and eggs in dublin are all Twats! its Disgraceful behaviour and a Embarrisment to our country. i thougth we were at Peace with england??? Outreagous behaviour thats all it is!!. This kind of Behaviour Cannot!! be tolerated and its Unexpectable

That's a pretty unique take on the English language you have there, fella... :eek:

mohawk

Some of you have forgotten how hard Tony Blair worked for peace in the North. For that he deserves some level of respect in this country.
Yes he went to war in Iraq. The information he went to war with was incorrect but based on Saddams history it was easy to believe he was a threat.
Remember appeasement and Hitler. Politicians of that era are heavily criticised for their dealings with Hitler. Thousands of civilians died and continue to die in Iraq but, there were being murdered in Iraq before the US and UK went in there. Saddam wasn't a threat but hindsight gives you 20:20 vision.

smokedeels

Ireland provided the usa/uk with a strategic-bonus in the Iraq war despite large Public outcry. I was personally frustrated at the time of the initial invasion as I felt that not only was the sizeable global opposition to war being ignored, but that this Country - which I understood, it would seem incorrectly, to be neutral - was conspiring in an war that most certainly questionable and possibly illegal.

I'll concede that some of those who attended Saturdays protest had nothing but bad intentions, but I can empathise with those who had good intentions, who are simply frustrated individuals who witnessed a horrific war, while two of the worlds most powerful men inarticulately spewed out flimsy reasons while, it seemed, the voices of many - some very well respected, informed among them - were being ignored.

If you make people feel helpless and constantly remind them that their voices and opinions in regards to the type of world we are building are worthless, don't be surprised if events like Saturday occur.

note: I was in bed when all this happened, I've become increasingly politically-apathetic post-Iraq.

Nodin

mohawk wrote: »

Yes he went to war in Iraq. The information he went to war with was incorrect but based on Saddams history it was easy to believe he was a threat.
.

No, thats not quite the case. I direct you to here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67842541&postcount=419
here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67842726&postcount=424
and here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67844759&postcount=467

thebigbiffo

i'm against the war in iraq for only one reason and it's nothing to do with blair (who i like and respect).

you need a lunatic dictator like saddam in a country like that because otherwise all the factions that make up the place will f'uckin kill each other - which they've proven is actually the case. they were ruled with an iron fist over there because they had to be.

saddam was a murderin b'astard - but the country is full of murderin b'astards...only a murderin bastard can keep other murderin bastards in line

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm against the war in iraq for only one reason and it's nothing to do with blair (who i like and respect).

you need a lunatic dictator like saddam in a country like that because otherwise all the factions that make up the place will f'uckin kill each other - which they've proven is actually the case. they were ruled with an iron fist over there because they had to be.

saddam was a murderin b'astard - but the country is full of murderin b'astards...only a murderin bastard can keep other murderin bastards in line

It's great to see the stereotypes and generalisations being consigned to history....

Jeboa Safari

They should have finished the job in the first gulf war and taken him out then after he invaded Kuwait, rather than waiting until 2003.

thebigbiffo

Nodin wrote: »

It's great to see the stereotypes and generalisations being consigned to history....

is it not the case then that there are many different groups trying to gain power in iraq and it's various provinces - who are murdering each other? stereotypes and generalisations have a very good use when trying to condense a thought into a few sentences!

happy to see smugness hasn't been consigned to history either huh

smokedeels

thebigbiffo wrote: »

is it not the case then that there are many different groups trying to gain power in iraq and it's various provinces - who are murdering each other?

ireland, yugosphere, russia, spain

do you want the Americans to install a Despot in each of these Countries/Regions?

thebigbiffo

smokedeels wrote: »

ireland, yugosphere, russia, spain

do you want the Americans to install a Despot in each of these countries?

no. i dont. but iraq was surprisingly stable under saddam, something it is very far from now after he's gone. i'm not supporting brutal dicatorships - i'm asking the the question was the country actually better off without him? i actually dont know the answer for sure - but i suspect it may be the case

Jeboa Safari

thebigbiffo wrote: »

no. i dont. but iraq was surprisingly stable under saddam, something it is very far from now after he's gone. i'm not supporting brutal dicatorships - i'm asking the the question was the country actually better off without him? i actually dont know the answer for sure - but i suspect it may be the case

Need to wait 5-10 years down the line to judge that I think, see if the current setup survives

smokedeels

thebigbiffo wrote: »

no. i dont. but iraq was surprisingly stable under saddam, something it is very far from now after he's gone. i'm not supporting brutal dicatorships - i'm asking the the question was the country actually better off without him? i actually dont know the answer for sure - but i suspect it may be the case

you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

although...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasion_Iraq

I hope "Human_Rights_in_The_Peoples_Iraq" reads better, if it happens.

starbelgrade

mohawk wrote: »

Some of you have forgotten how hard Tony Blair worked for peace in the North. For that he deserves some level of respect in this country.
Yes he went to war in Iraq. The information he went to war with was incorrect but based on Saddams history it was easy to believe he was a threat.
Remember appeasement and Hitler. Politicians of that era are heavily criticised for their dealings with Hitler. Thousands of civilians died and continue to die in Iraq but, there were being murdered in Iraq before the US and UK went in there. Saddam wasn't a threat but hindsight gives you 20:20 vision.

No-one can criticise Blair's involvement in the peace process, and I doubt that anyone has forgotten his role in it, but that doesn't get him a get out of jail free card for his role in the Iraqi invasion.

And as for hindsight - well, before the invasion, there was plenty of foresight & plenty of people urging the UK not to get involved in that war. Blair ignored the warnings & went ahead full steam and for that reason, he deserves to be judged as accountable for his actions.

mohawk

thebigbiffo wrote: »

no. i dont. but iraq was surprisingly stable under saddam, something it is very far from now after he's gone. i'm not supporting brutal dicatorships - i'm asking the the question was the country actually better off without him? i actually dont know the answer for sure - but i suspect it may be the case

should Iraq be one country at all then? should it be split up?

thebigbiffo

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Need to wait 5-10 years down the line to judge that I think, see if the current setup survives

exactly - but i dont foresee a sunny (pun not intended) future full of rainbows and flowers. it'll be s'hite (pun intended)

smokedeels wrote: »

you sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq

although...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasion_Iraq

I hope "Human_Rights_in_The_Peoples_Iraq" reads better, if it happens.

i know saddam was a scumbag...but they're not going to start loving thy neighbour over there just cos he's gone. human rights abuses will continue to be dreadful

mohawk wrote: »

should Iraq be one country at all then? should it be split up?

you would think so - but the fighting over territory would in itself lead to civil war

nacho libre

mohawk wrote: »

Yes he went to war in Iraq. The information he went to war with was incorrect .

why do you think Robin Cook resigned from the Cabinet. Why did Clare Short regret not doing so?? why was colin powell squirming at the un when presenting the "evidence" to justify the Iraq war. finally do you not remember the so-called dossier that supposedly nailed the case for war was actually found out to be most lifted from somebody elses work.



so lets cut out the nonsense revisionism once and for all, WMD were nothing but a pretext to sell the Iraq war to the public.
Blair supported the war because he felt it was right thing to do to remove saddam, but also to preserve anglo- american relations. A tory government would of course have done the same, so it was rich of them to criticise the iraq war afterwards.

Darlughda

Result.

The Irony.

Majority of Britain saluting us for what happened on Sat.

Even though he never got hit. (So much for the alleged 'violence')

Tony has cancelled book signings cause he's got the fear.

Jeboa Safari

Darlughda wrote: »

Result.

The Irony.

Majority of Britain saluting us for what happened on Sat.

Even though he never got hit. (So much for the alleged 'violence')

Tony has cancelled book signings cause he's got the fear.

The result is a curtailment of freedom in favour of the mob.
What a great victory :rolleyes:

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

no. i dont. but iraq was surprisingly stable under saddam, something it is very far from now after he's gone. i'm not supporting brutal dicatorships - i'm asking the the question was the country actually better off without him? i actually dont know the answer for sure - but i suspect it may be the case

If a country is inherently unstable, the only thing a dictatorship seems to do is store up the violence till a later date, or worse - create division. Look at Yugoslavia, for instance. You're also ignoring the vast amount of violence used to secure control pre 1991.

Saddams methods involved completly disenfranchising the Shia (purely for tactical reasons) and likewise the Kurds. Thus this built problems and resentment which would inevitable spill over after he was gone. Add to that Iranian, American and Sunni extremist involvement, plus local tribal frictions and its not going to be hymns and toast round the shaggin fire.

Owwmykneecap

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm against the war in iraq for only one reason and it's nothing to do with blair (who i like and respect).

you need a lunatic dictator like saddam in a country like that because otherwise all the factions that make up the place will f'uckin kill each other - which they've proven is actually the case. they were ruled with an iron fist over there because they had to be.

saddam was a murderin b'astard - but the country is full of murderin b'astards...only a murderin bastard can keep other murderin bastards in line

Like how we routinely slaughter the protestant minority every samhain to appease our lord Imhotep?

thebigbiffo

Nodin wrote: »

If a country is inherently unstable, the only thing a dictatorship seems to do is store up the violence till a later date, or worse - create division. Look at Yugoslavia, for instance. You're also ignoring the vast amount of violence used to secure control pre 1991.

Saddams methods involved completly disenfranchising the Shia (purely for tactical reasons) and likewise the Kurds. Thus this built problems and resentment which would inevitable spill over after he was gone. Add to that Iranian, American and Sunni extremist involvement, plus local tribal frictions and its not going to be hymns and toast round the shaggin fire.

the divisions were there already - which is why violence was needed to claim power, keep it and subdue the dissenters. you're forgetting that this tribal and religious strife was there beforehand and saddam just carried on screwing over the same people who were always getting screwed over.

i think your post kind of proves the point i'm trying to make - i never said it was 'hymns and toast', but i did say the country was relatively stable and it was...it was no utopia, but it wasn't as bad as some countries in the world were and continue to be without much hullabaloo from the international community/you (look south to that big continent with countries that nobody gives a s'hit about for my prime example)

thebigbiffo

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Like how we routinely slaughter the protestant minority every samhain to appease our lord Imhotep?

yes...yes...exactly like that yeah.

:rolleyes:

Darlughda

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

The result is a curtailment of freedom in favour of the mob.
What a great victory :rolleyes:

Mob?

Was not it agreed there was only around 200 protestors there?

More like a victory for the individual who stands up against what is wrong with others.

RobitTV

When the former Prime Minister visited Dublin, Protesters threw shoes and one Even attempted to perform a citizens arrest.

:: He has now confirmed his second public appearance, an event at a branch of Waterstone's in Piccadilly, will be scrapped. ::

Mr Blair said: "I have decided not to go ahead with the signing as I don’t want the public to be inconvenienced by the inevitable hassle caused by protestors.

"I know the Metropolitan Police would, as ever, have done a superb job in managing any disruption but I do not wish to impose an extra strain on police resources, simply for a book signing.

"I'm really sorry for those – as ever the majority – who would have come to have their books signed by me in person. I hope they understand," he added in a statement.

Earlier, Mr Blair told Sky News it was "pretty typical" to be greeted by critics because 10 years in Downing Street had turned him into a "divisive figure".

Blairs book in numbers:
(Woman who attempted citizens arrest)

Mr Blair, who famously promised to be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime", told The Daily Telegraph Britain should learn from developing countries that "just don't accept" criminality.

But Mr Blair said: "You've got to put in prison those who deserve to be there."

He also claimed "14-year-old kids stabbing one another to death" are "making people's lives hell"

Clawdeeus

Nodin wrote: »

If a country is inherently unstable, the only thing a dictatorship seems to do is store up the violence till a later date, or worse - create division. Look at Yugoslavia, for instance. You're also ignoring the vast amount of violence used to secure control pre 1991.

Saddams methods involved completly disenfranchising the Shia (purely for tactical reasons) and likewise the Kurds. Thus this built problems and resentment which would inevitable spill over after he was gone. Add to that Iranian, American and Sunni extremist involvement, plus local tribal frictions and its not going to be hymns and toast round the shaggin fire.

And after the Gulf war, when about 100000 were put down in the subsequent rebellion.

Clawdeeus

Darlughda wrote: »

Mob?

Was not it agreed there was only around 200 protestors there?

More like a victory for the individual who stands up against what is wrong with others.

A small group taking actiosn which effects the majority? It was a mob mentality, whether they did it for moral reasons or not.

Owwmykneecap

The bystander effect is a type of mob mentality.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with mob mentality of any kind. you're just talking out your arse.

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

the divisions were there already -
which is why violence was needed to claim power, keep it and subdue the dissenters. you're forgetting that this tribal and religious strife was there beforehand and saddam just carried on screwing over the same people who were always getting screwed over.

It was Saddam who started the genocide against the Kurds, Saddam who took their land and tried to settle it with non-Kurds, Saddam who persecuted the Shia to that extent.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i think your post kind of proves the point i'm trying to make - i never said it was 'hymns and toast', but i did say the country was relatively stable and it was..

Until 1991. Not counting a war against the Kurdish insurgency and the one against Iran. And the ongoing suppression of various minorities and dissidents. Just because it didn't make the headlines then doesn't mean it didn't go on.

irishconvert

speedboatchase wrote:

But seriously - why the Palestinian flags?

Maybe because there is a lot of links between b-liar and Israel/Palestine. He is the Middle East "Peace" envoy for a start, although how someone who started two major wars is a peace envoy is beyone me. He doesn't put any pressure on Israel to sort out the Palestine issue.

Sefirah wrote: »

Because it isn't a truly retarded protest until the Palestinian flags get flapped about

What is so retarded about supporting the opressed Palestinians?

Sefirah wrote: »

Wonder who they got the idea of throwing shoe from...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFX-dKpcDz8

That man is a legend, pity his aim was so bad.

Clawdeeus

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

The bystander effect is a type of mob mentality.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with mob mentality of any kind. you're just talking out your arse.

A group of people throwing things and attempting to rush a private store? Just because you agree with the reasons behind the protest, does not change that it did act like a mob. Its very simple.

Jeboa Safari

irishconvert wrote: »

Maybe because there is a lot of links between b-liar and Israel/Palestine. He is the Middle East "Peace" envoy for a start, although how someone who started two major wars is a peace envoy is beyone me. He doesn't put any pressure on Israel to sort out the Palestine issue.
What is so retarded about supporting the opressed Palestinians?

There's peace talks between Israel and Palestine happening at the moment isn't there? Can't just put pressure on Israel, has to come from both sides. I note the Hamas response to peace talks was to threaten more violence

Corsendonk

Did anyone get lucky and pick up a matching pair of shoes? Upset I missed it.

Why do the Irish police always look like they can barely control any protest?

irishconvert

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

There's peace talks between Israel and Palestine happening at the moment isn't there? Can't just put pressure on Israel, has to come from both sides. I note the Hamas response to peace talks was to threaten more violence

The peace talks are for show. Israel has no interest in peace.

Clawdeeus

irishconvert wrote: »

The peace talks are for show. Israel has no interest in peace.

The only people who have stated they have no interest in peace is Hamas.

dan719

irishconvert wrote: »

The peace talks are for show. Israel has no interest in peace.

Who would have thought converting to Islam meant spouting it's propoganda too. :rolleyes:

Nodin

dan719 wrote: »

Who would have thought converting to Islam meant spouting it's propoganda too. :rolleyes:

....I wasn't aware there was a section of the Koran dealing with propaganda on the current peace talks.....

Donkey Oaty

Nodin wrote: »

....I wasn't aware there was a section of the Koran dealing with propaganda on the current peace talks.....

I'd invite Muslims in peace talks to dismiss Irishconvert's understandable scepticism about Israel and go with the following:

"O you who believe! seek assistance through patience and prayer; surely Allah is with the patient." (The Cow 2.153)

Nodin

Its certainly more concillatory that what we can glean of dan719's phillosophy.....

Get off your moral high horse. You are no better than anyone else living in the west. F*ck Iraq. They went to war, people died. That happens. If Blair turned around and said the war was about securing oil supplies, I still wouldn't give a damn, at the end of the day, we need oil.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67840741&postcount=369