Shoes and Eggs pelted at Tony Blair in Dublin

Donkey Oaty

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Our anti-war/global justice movement desperately needs more people with a dose of PR savvy, an imaginative mind for strategy and a coherent idea of what activism is.

Sure that's just sensible talk.

Go away.

RobitTV

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Sorry we kept you waiting Sir.

Biggins I'll hug ya since I'm here.

Please report posts that may have offended you, thanks.

Ahh its ok Atleast your here now

Biggins

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

...Biggins I'll hug ya since I'm here...

...Shucks, thats awfully sweet. I'll share my Jelly Babies with you for that.

Foxtrol

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

...A few people getting carried away with their emotions does not take away
from the main point of this protest...

Im afraid it does. The vast majority of people watching these pictures across Ireland/UK/the World are going to brand the protest and those involved as being a bunch of hypercritical idiotic thugs even if they agree that Blair has questions to answer.

Wertz

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

FFS, second grammar nazi on boards today using the grammatical
nazification argument becuase they disagree with their opponent's claims,

Fair point and I don't like being a grammar nazi (I can't help myself), but show me where the poster in question made any valid points...other than back seat modding, there was no argument to make with them over their views because I didn't get to read them, all I got was addressed by handle and told to stop contributing in broken english. Anyway all that is way off topic.
Apologies to Robittv. The Report Post button works out better for everyone if you have a problem with mine or anyone elses's posts.

PCros

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Why didn't they go over to Downing Street to stop this lunatic when he was still in power? Too busy?

Alot of them had English accents today.....

Poor Uncle Tom

NEWSFLASH:
Anti-war protesters get violent.

The phrase, it takes one to know one starts to make sense.

Foxtrol

Wertz wrote: »

Besides, the guy was here to sell his book, arguably making money on the back of his alleged war-mongering...that may not sit well with some people.

All the money Blair makes is going to a UK Defense forces charity

Donkey Oaty

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Anti-war protesters get violent.

I wasn't there, but I'd say there were a fair few that didnt.

RobitTV

Wertz wrote: »

Fair point and I don't like being a grammar nazi (I can't help myself), but show me where the poster in question made any valid points...other than back seat modding, there was no argument to make with them over their views because I didn't get to read them, all I got was addressed by handle and told to stop contributing in broken english. Anyway all that is way off topic.
Apologies to Robittv. The Report Post button works out better for everyone if you have a problem with mine or anyone elses's posts.

My Apologies also Sorry for telling you to leave earlier.

Wertz

RobitTV wrote: »

My Apologies also Sorry for telling you to leave earlier.

Easy to get hot headed in here and miss people's points, jokes or irony. We've all done it.
Better to put down the opinion of those you disagree with than telling them to get out, same way as it's better to avoid picking up on spelling or grammar. Sorry for that.

Foxtrol, that is a good point on the charity contributions, but it doesn't mean that no money is being made. Some of those that showed up today might disagree with where the charity money is going too

Logical Fallacy

Wertz wrote: »

Foxtrol, that is a good point on the charity contributions, but it doesn't mean that no money is being made. Some of those that showed up today might disagree with where the charity money is going too

Well, there is a large irony in the fact that the money is going to a charity to help soldiers injured in war, but that is a kind of dark irony better left to Aronofsky movies than real life.

At the end of the day Blair is a polarising figure who has done good and bad, just like most people...unfortunately for him his former post insured a far greater scale of bad than good.

Interesting thread, my favourite moment was the person calling for a baton charge on the protesters. Well done that person, I would happily shake your hand for the complete majesty of comedic understanding such a comment hints at.

Unless you were serious of course.

Donkey Oaty

I spoke to an English person today and told them about the eggs, shoes, etc thrown at Blair. They went "Hey! Whoop!" etc, and said "Good for the Irish!".

It seems that this sentiment is shared by many contributors to The Guardian and The Times.

I'm confused. Aren't the British supposed to be our enemy?

sponsoredwalk

Wertz wrote: »

Fair point and I don't like being a grammar nazi (I can't help myself), but show me where the poster in question made any valid points

I didn't see any I just wanted to say there's no need to go low when
you've got a good argument :cool:

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Way to miss the point there fella!

Why didn't they go over to Downing Street to stop this lunatic when he was still in power? Too busy?

Well, this would certainly be a question you'd have to posit to those people
instead of specualating about it on the internet...

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This was just an excuse for the usuals to trot out the same tired protest again and the public at large still don't give a fiddlers **** about it because most people realise it was a bad situation that had an unfortunate outome.

I spoke too soon, there went the speculation, was it to be any other way?

I've never seen someone dig so deep to condemn a group of people, in
order not to incur your wrathful suspicion these people would have to be
actively engaged in bringing hundreds, if not thousands, over to London
to protest outside Blair's offices.
Would the logic not extend further, these people would have to protest
outside every single war criminal currently not locked up in order to
pass your logical litmus test. Do you see the illogicality of the logic you've
been purporting yet?

I don't think we're being honest here, we're feeding into our biases, on
both sides.

I think some evidence from FionnMatthew would put all of the suspicion
about Blair to rest in a concrete manner, hopefully we'll get this
information that the protestors out on the streets must have misused or
missed...

HxGH

FearDark wrote: »

Honestly, who throws a shoe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D5oKEVqQJg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duLds-TZMGw

Answer = this guy.

JohnfromGalway

I've read all posts here & am left with an awful conclusion:

Tony Blair, anyone criticizing the rabble on O'Connell St this morning, myself for being able (for the most part) to spell correctly... are all Nazis!

Whereas Saddam, Hamas, Iranian govt etc etc are all misunderstood angels.

Where did it all go wrong for me?

StompToWork

I was just wondering. Those who categorize Blair as a war criminal, who interpret that he broke the Genova conventions, I am interested in why, in these people's opinion, do they think he decided to take the actions that he did. Was it for power, money, women, ****s-and-giggles, or was he simply mistaken. People must have opinions on this, and I for one would be interested in discovering those opinions.

FionnMatthew

My name is URL wrote: »

Instead of having crusty looking hippies throw their sandals at him and trying to arrest him, why are people not putting pressure on those who actually have the power to charge Blair with war crimes? Why hasn't he been summonsed to Strasburg for violating human rights?

People are actually doing this. It would be nice if before asking questions like this, or mouthing off, people on here took the trouble to inform themselves about the issue at hand.

There are two routes by which activists are seeking a criminal trial of Anthony Blair.


The United Nations Route

and

The International Criminal Court Route


Typically, protests like the one this morning serve the purpose of publicizing the issue, enabling other avenues of activism, thereby influencing popular opinion, mobilizing more activists, and progressing a coherent strategy to achieve clearly articulated goals. Sadly, the protest appears to have been inarticulate and probably did more to hurt the cause than help it.

As for this:

He either didn't break any international law or there's one vast conspiracy happening to protect him from prosecution, so which is it?

This is a false dichotomy. While there are merits to the idea that the international community is actually a lot less likely to bring the heads of state of the hegemonic powers before a war crimes tribunal (which looks a bit like, but is not quite, a conspiracy, but just realpolitik) it is not required to see that even though war crimes might have been committed, a trial might not immediately ensue.

It is often very difficult to establish a prima facie case for a war crimes trial, and the bureaucracy involved slows things down immensely. The vast majority of war crimes go unpunished. None of this means that war criminals should not be put before a trial, though.

A_Border_Bandit

Denerick wrote: »

Because a few dozen student twats love having their day out.

The fúcking imbeciles.

They didn't look like the student type to me...

Nodin

tinkerbell wrote:

......at one of the world's greatest leaders.

When did one arrive?

drkpower wrote:

Yet you still fail to quote him or even attempt to paraphrase him, despite me asking you a few times. I wonder why?

...because I've no transcript and - having listened to it again - am happy to stand over my statement wait till one becomes available.

Biggins

Newsflash!

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/9260/shopb.jpg

Exodus 1811

RobitTV wrote: »

My Apologies also Sorry for telling you to leave earlier.

Is this the first time this has happened in after hours? Personally its my first time to witness it !

copacetic

this quote gave me a grin:

Another protester, Niall Farrell, from a Galway anti-war group queued and succeeded in getting past the initial security check. However, he was then recognised and was ejected from the premises.

“They obviously recognised that I’m a peace activist

Maybe I'm cynical, but I'm guessing dressing like a soap dodger was the giveway that brought the cunning plan crashing down?

Donkey Oaty

Biggins wrote: »

Newsflash!

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/9260/shopb.jpg

Wouldn't flourescent tape have been cheaper? As a taxpayer, etc etc

Táck

Biggins wrote: »

Newsflash!

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/9260/shopb.jpg

pfft, slaves to the pay cheques.

Nodin

Unless they aren't showing it on the news, theres a disturbing lack of shoes and eggs.......is there other footage?

Biggins

Nodin wrote: »

Unless they aren't showing it on the news, theres a disturbing lack of shoes and eggs.......is there other footage?

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6659/protestse.jpg

stooodent

Biggins wrote: »

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6659/protestse.jpg

aha brill I love pointless protest...:D

Donkey Oaty

StompToWork wrote: »

I am interested in why, in these people's opinion, do they think he decided to take the actions that he did. Was it for power, money, women, ****s-and-giggles, or was he simply mistaken. People must have opinions on this, and I for one would be interested in discovering those opinions.

I understand he's written a book explaining this.

Nodin

stooodent wrote: »

aha brill I love pointless protest...:D

Shut up you, and get a job.

drkpower

Nodin wrote: »

...because I've no transcript and - having listened to it again - am happy to stand over my statement wait till one becomes available.

Do you know what paraphrase means?
Clearly not.

Mister men

Fair play to the people who protested againest this disgusting human being today. Just a pity i could'nt make it in. Bloody work.

Biggins

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I understand he's written a book explaining this.

He has: http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3391/book2c.jpg

flas

he is resposible for the deaths of thosands of people, a shoe in the head is the leats he deserves

FionnMatthew

To be honest, the demands that I supply evidence for what I've said are a little strange. It suggests that the people who, previous to my mentioning specific war crimes were claiming that it is ridiculous that Blair might be considered a war criminal, are not in fact familiar enough with the topic to know what the typical allegations are.

If you're going to take the attitude that it's ridiculous that he might be considered a war criminal, you should at least have already investigated those allegations, and sought the evidence invoked in their favour, and have good reasons for finding the evidence insufficient, and the arguments unconvincing.

Otherwise, you're just considering something unlikely because you haven't bothered finding out whether it is or not.

Furthermore, it seems a strange request to make, if you are genuinely interested in finding out. If I have raised the possibility that he might in fact be guilty of war crimes, and you have not yet familiarized yourself with the topic, it's a bit rich to demand that I do all your research for you. While I would like nothing better than to succeed in informing my fellow civilians about pressing issues of global justice, it seems like an uneven distribution of the labour if it is solely my responsibility. I consider it my responsibility to be informed enough about this. Why don't you?

To be honest, it looks like a request that I bring the evidence to you just so that you can shoot it down. Hence the preemptive disavowal of the evidence presented on the sites of anti-war and humanitarian organizations. Whatever about crazy protestors hurling eggs, activist organizations tend to have a coherent mandate in the opposition to war, and it is their main priority when they are concerned with war crimes to determine if there are war crimes, and to publicize them, to hold governments and militaries to account. I don't see why there should be distrust of evidence presented in an informative and rigorous way in the reports of humanitarian organizations ab initio.

Furthermore, if you were looking for a place to start informing yourself about how war crimes are defined, and where to look to read the actual laws involved, you could do a lot worse than looking at Wikipedia. At the bottom of the Wikipedia pages on the relevant texts, you will find links to copies of the texts on accredited websites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_%281899_and_1907%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

I don't have all day to do your research for you. Being informed on this topic is something that takes a bit of work, for a number of reasons. I can't possibly present the weight of evidence here. Further, in calling for an official investigation into the alleged carrying out of war crimes, I willingly give the responsibility for building an actual case to a prosecutor. I don't have to have the whole case - I merely have to have sufficient reason to believe a trial is called for.

I recommend that you do some reading about this, so as to arrive at an informed view on it, rather than what is apparently a view based on ill-informed incredulity. From the half hour I've spent digging up links, I will provide a selection of links from a variety of sources, which I hope will provide you with sufficient reason to investigate further. Some of these deal with US alleged war crimes rather than British ones. Please cross reference the reports with the allegations in this post for relevance, and seek the appropriate section of the mentioned laws to establish its illegality for yourself.

Here's some history of the Iraq war, and the record on its legality ad bellum and in bello.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Criminal_Court_and_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Instead of discounting it entirely, please follow the citation trail, like anyone else has to.

Specifics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/usa.iraq1
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html/%28page%29/2
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/pdf/06221-etn-hrf-dic-rep-web.pdf
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16156
http://www.alternet.org/world/78352/

Alternet is often a good source.

Here are the Iraq pages of some humanitarian organizations. Look here to substantiate for yourself supporting facts for the allegations of the creation of a humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/iraq?opendocument&link=home
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/allcontent.cfm?id=36
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iraq

And the GlobalIssues page:
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/104/iraq-crisis

The Wikileaks page, in particular, is a good source, because many of the protocol documents demonstrate how it would be institutionally possible, indeed likely, for war crimes to occur, and not reach the ears of the general public.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Iraq
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Collateral_Murder,_5_Apr_2010

This is all just Iraq, you only need to consult the Guardian, der Spiegel's or the NY Times documentation on the Afghan War Diaries to find very troubling evidence that crimes in the conduct of the Afghan war may be a lot more common than we think. At the least, they establish a mandate that the governments involved ought not to be allowed make the call for themselves, given the level of secrecy with which they conceal their actions.

ejmaztec

Mister men wrote: »

Fair play to the people who protested againest this disgusting human being today. Just a pity i could'nt make it in. Bloody work.

Yeh, I couldn't be arsed going to Dublin either.

speedboatchase

But seriously - why the Palestinian flags?

Wertz

lol
You're on fire tonight biggins.

BTW anyone doubting the whole Iraqi invasion thing being pre-planned would do well to look at the signatories in the letter to Pres Clinton from the PNAC think tank. It'll be on google somewhere.
No Blair isn't on it, his help and that of his country's intelligence services and armed forces came later, in return for what exactly I don't know...perhaps Blair even thought he was doing the right thing and then got in so deep he had to swallow the lie and live with it...personally I think he was indoctrinated into the neo-con mindset from early in his career and was a willing participant in the deception and the call to arms...

StompToWork

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I understand he's written a book explaining this.

Many thanks for the extraordinarily glib response. However, my question was what are people's personal opinion as to why he took the actions that he did? Surely they are not being led by what the media and Wikileaks shove down their throats?

Is it unimaginable that he may genuinely believed he was doing the correct thing and in the best interest of the people of Iraq? (And the first person to comment along the lines of "Sure didn't Hitler believe he was doing the world a service by slaughtering Jews" will get a virtual slap.)

Nodin

Wertz wrote: »

lol
You're on fire tonight biggins.

BTW anyone doubting the whole Iraqi invasion thing being pre-planned would do well to look at the signatories in the letter to Pres Clinton from the PNAC think tank. It'll be on google somewhere.
...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

Not forgetting....
"while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

starbelgrade

StompToWork wrote: »

Many thanks for the extraordinarily glib response. However, my question was what are people's personal opinion as to why he took the actions that he did?

Simple - Blair suffered from a God Complex.

KeithAFC

He doesn't help himself when he talks about Iran and taking action against them if needs be. Even if i do agree with him.

starbelgrade

StompToWork wrote: »

(And the first person to comment along the lines of "Sure didn't Hitler believe he was doing the world a service by slaughtering Jews" will get a virtual slap.)

Oh yes - the virtual slap. Feared by the masses & guaranteed to strike fear into any posters who disagree with you.

Not.

How about this - if you post here again, I will throw a virtual shoe at your head.

Poor Uncle Tom

starbelgrade wrote: »

- if you post here again, I will throw a virtual shoe at your head.

That's virtual violance.....:p

mikom

starbelgrade wrote: »

How about this - if you post here again, I will throw a virtual shoe at your head.

Virtual duck?

starbelgrade

mikom wrote: »

Virtual duck?

That's where the virtual eggs come from.

mikom

starbelgrade wrote: »

That's where the virtual eggs come from.

Virtual dog mask........ http://ubersuper.com/uploads/yapb_cache/tumblr_l7lw6navkd1qzpwi0o1_500.xjq6kzm37tccso44wkckg4s0.47x7xmjn5kw0040owwww4kgo4.th.jpeg

Dyr

Why didn't they queue up with his book and then throw it at him once they got in?

Cos student are too fckuking cheap to buy stuff is why

galwayrush

The idiotic antics of the protestors were an embarrassment. What a stupid way of trying to get your point across, throwing things and acting like thugs.

bytey

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Love posts like this, such anger and venom at people who actually do something.
Have you been living in a cave these past months?

http://www.youtube.com/user/TradeUnionTVIreland

I agree it's a bad thing when protestors throw shoes, or storm gates,
or do anything that will give the opposition any ammunition, but 5 seconds
of thought beyond the primal, gut reaction & it makes sense.
A few people getting carried away with their emotions does not take away
from the main point of this protest.

We have to give him credit for supposedly stopping something like this after all, right...?

i love post like yours showing that idiots like you will continue to live in the crap your own government hand out to you - while whining on about some other countrys issues .

get your own house in order you fools .