PDA

View Full Version : Blair for human rights award!!!!????


test

bankhousedave
09-13-2010, 03:50 PM
Yes I'm back folks. If Bill Clinton is going to give B Liar a human rights award, how come Joe Stalin, Idi Amin and Adolf Hitler didn't get one - or Mugabe, come to that? Is it because although they caused the deaths of thousands, they weren't technically traitors to their own nations, or universally reviled by their own citizens?

I hope the people who selected Tone for this award are being well cared for in the asylum.

144man
09-13-2010, 06:22 PM
The award would probably be for his achievements in Northern Ireland.

StuBass1
09-14-2010, 12:17 PM
America has no better friend abroad than The Honorable Tony Blair.

timmyfunk
09-14-2010, 04:36 PM
If you're Bush, maybe. If you're Obama, it's highly debatable.

StuBass1
09-14-2010, 06:02 PM
Actually Timmy...Tony Blair enjoyed a close and cordial relationship with President's Clinton, Bush. and Obama. As I siad...a true friend and supporter of America.

timmyfunk
09-15-2010, 07:31 AM
A supporter of particular administrations, maybe. A supporter of the U.S. as a country overall, again, debatable.

motownmorph1
09-15-2010, 09:49 AM
it is a shame was not a better freind & supporter to his own country!

morph

funky_fresh
09-15-2010, 03:17 PM
Blair is/was nothing more than a shill for the neoconservative/neo-zionist movement (Bell Kristol et all). With friends like Blair, America will have nothing but enemies.


Tony Blair and the Great Islamic Threat

By Gwynne Dyer

September 13, 2010 "Straight" -- People often wind up believing their own cover story. Former British prime minister Tony Blair, for example, is trapped forever in the rationalizations he used in 2003 to explain why he was going along with George Bush’s invasion of Iraq. He was at it again last week, telling the BBC that “radical Islam” is the greatest threat facing the world today.

The BBC journalist went to Ireland for the interview because Blair chose Dublin for the only live signing of his newly published autobiography: a personal appearance in Britain wouldn’t be safe. Even in Ireland, the protesters threw eggs and shoes at the man who was Bush’s faithful sidekick in the struggle to save western civilization from radical Islam.

But is militant Islam really a bigger threat to the world than the possibility of a major nuclear war (happily, now in abeyance, but never really gone)? Bigger than the risk that infectious diseases are going to make a major comeback as antibiotics become ineffective? Bigger even than the threat of runaway global warming?

Blair has to say it is, because he was one of the people who launched a crusade against radical Islamists after 9/11. Or at least against those whom they accused of being supporters of radical Islam, although many of them (like Saddam Hussein) were nothing of the sort.

Blair has never publicly acknowledged that Saddam was actually an enemy of radical Islam: admitting that would drain the last dram of logic from his justification for invading Iraq. So he only talks in general terms about fighting “radical Islam” and hopes that the more ignorant part of the public will think that includes the Iraq war.

Never mind. It’s far too late for Blair to change his story, and the argument about Iraq has gone stale by now anyway. Except for one thing: many influential people in western countries still insist that “radical Islam” is, indeed, the world’s greatest threat. Some do it for career reasons, and others do it from conviction, but they all get a more respectful hearing than they deserve.

It depends on what you mean by “radical Islam”, of course. In some western circles, any Muslim who challenges western policies is by definition an Islamist radical. But if it means Sunni Muslims who believe in the Salafist interpretation of Islam and are personally willing to use terrorist violence to spread it, then there aren’t very many of them: a few hundred thousand at most.

These people are unlikely to start blowing things up in New Jersey or Bavaria, though they are a serious threat to fellow Muslims living in their own countries. (They are particularly keen on killing Shias.) The vast majority of them speak no foreign language and could never get a passport.

It’s a big, ugly problem for countries like Iraq and Pakistan, but it is a pretty small problem for everybody else. The number of people killed by “radical Islamic” terrorists in the past decade outside the Muslim world is probably no more than 15,000.

None of these deaths is justifiable, but it is weird to insist that a phenomenon that causes an average of, say, 1,500 non-Muslim deaths a year, on a planet with almost seven billion people, is the greatest threat facing the world today. Yet the people who launched the “war on terror” do say that, as do many others who built their careers by pushing the same proposition.

They do it by the simple device of warning (to quote Blair’s recent interview) that “there is the most enormous threat from the combination of this radical extreme movement and the fact that, if they could, they would use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. You can’t take a risk with that happening.”

Never mind the quite limited damage that terrorists actually do. Imagine the damage they might do if they got their hands on such weapons. Very well, let us imagine just that.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union had 10,000 nuclear weapons ready to launch at each other. If they had ever gone to war, hundreds of millions of people would have been killed—even several billion, if it had caused a nuclear winter. And, of course, the two countries had huge biological- and chemical-warfare capabilities too.

If “radical Islamists” ever got their hands on a nuclear weapon, it would be one bomb, not 10,000 warheads. If they managed to explode it, it would be a local disaster, not a global holocaust. The worst poison-gas attack ever, on the Tokyo underground system in 1995, killed only 13 people, and although germ warfare could be hugely destructive of human life, it requires scientific capabilities that are very difficult to master.

Besides, just how does invading various Muslim countries shrink any of these dangers? It probably increases them, actually, by outraging many Muslims and providing the extremists with a steady flow of recruits.

Terrorism, by radical Islamists or anybody else, is a real threat but a modest one. It cannot be “defeated”, but it can be contained by good police work and wise policy choices. It might make it into the top 10 global threats, but it certainly wouldn’t make it into the top three. Anybody who says it does has something to sell or something to hide.

bankhousedave
09-18-2010, 05:04 PM
Stu is absolutely right. Blair sold out his country to America.

timmyfunk
09-18-2010, 05:38 PM
That's an interesting observation, Dave.

theboyfromxtown
09-18-2010, 06:59 PM
Cherie is clearly missing out on her freebies. Perish the thought she should find her purse and open it to pay for something.

bankhousedave
09-18-2010, 07:16 PM
Yeah, Timmy. Nothing personal, but Bliar was more interested in the interests of the US than the country of which he was supposed to be prime minister. He knew he would be appreciated for taking us along, but that wasn't his job, however you look at it. Doesn't matter whether you regard that as the right course or otherwise. He wasn't elected by America, didn't have his mandate from there. Stu will be happy because he is the most Americocentric person on this cockamamie planet, but the fact is that a prime minister who has his own agenda and ignores the desires of his people - worse, lies to them because he is only a tool of another power - and further takes them into an illegal war, contrary to the wishes of the people he represents - and, even more than the liars and cretins before him, uses the media to pretend that a million plus people are not on the streets protesting - is a traitor, not only to Britian but to the West. Stu's whole BS falls down because Blair is more of a terrorist than any Muslim. Blair's nerve in pushing his lying book in the UK is made worse by the fact that he colluded with the so-called enemies of democracy to get rid of his own sordid enemies. Any 'victory' won with people as morally bankrupt and cuckoo as Blair is no victory at all.

Doug-Morgan
09-18-2010, 07:24 PM
Could have been worse. He could have given it to Nicolas Sarkozy.

bankhousedave
09-18-2010, 07:33 PM
I was in France a month or two back. Sarkozy is a fascist by any other name. There's a job going for anyone with the skills, chiseling out Liberte and Egalite from the front of all the Mairies. Turns out the revolution there was for nothing. Glad I didn't move there now.

StuBass1
09-18-2010, 09:27 PM
Yikes...I just realized that the throngs of people wildly celebrating the 9/11 attacks throughout the Middle East (or so I thought), were actually cheering the "terrorist" TONY BLAIR...

bankhousedave
09-19-2010, 04:45 AM
Hi Stu:

I've missed waving and gesticulating to you across the reality gap. You could have done that peace envoy job. We'd have published your book and you could have kept the money. Poor old Tone had to use his advance to buy off the families of the soldiers he had killed. And he had to cancel his book launches in case any honest citizens got even with him.

StuBass1
09-19-2010, 11:51 AM
Hi Dave!!!...And I thought we were just waving across some big pond...But I must admit, I love the "moral equivelency" aspect of it all. To compare Tony Blair with Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin reeks of it, and also, in my opinion, illustrates a completely misguided understanding of history. Millions of Jews and Africans (past and present) would likely understand what I'm talking about here.

bankhousedave
09-19-2010, 01:19 PM
I take your point, Stu. The aspect of betrayal, rather than the result was what I was referring to. Blair's crimes do not come close to the horrors perpetrated by Adolf and Idi, but allowing a single individual to dramatise his insanity on the public stage is something we might by now have learned not to do. To reward megalomania is certainly to learn nothing from history.

StuBass1
09-19-2010, 04:47 PM
Thank you for understanding that point Dave! I admit to not being totally up to speed on the internal, domestic, and economic inticracies of Great Britain, but as relates to foreign policy and national defense, I believe Blair saw his country as being much closer to the center of terrolrist activity than the US, thus, his hard line on terrorism and Middle East radicalism, which I believe explains th e basis for many of h is positions.

tamla617
09-20-2010, 03:54 PM
b.liar would be anyones friend if it fills his back pocket.
he's a millionaire socialist.i know he isnt the 1st but he has somehow managed to get property portfolio worth millions.the prime minister earns about 140,000,do the math.there is something dark about him (and mandleson) actually there's a list and we aint got space!
i'm starting to feel sick

StuBass1
09-20-2010, 05:27 PM
It's not at all unusual for former heads of State to sit on corporate boards and get paid for bringing the prestige of their office to economic concerns...or write a book and get huge advances. Much the same with President and Mrs Obama who raked in about 10 million dollars on book advances...and that was BEFORE he became President. Clintons...about 100 Million bucks. Now...so far as Blair becoming a socialist??? I don't know, but it seems to me that he followed President Clintons economic model...cut entitlements to bring about economic prosperity and cut deficits...hardly a socialist concept.

bankhousedave
09-20-2010, 05:53 PM
B liar claimed to be a socialist, but was a monetarist. He was voted in beause he wasn't a monetarist, but he was one. He used the worst of socialism when it suited him, and he used the worst of the other outmoded crappy arsed left-right shit when that suited him too. He claimed to be a god-fearing catholic because that worked and he made sure his own kids were abroad so they didn't have to serve in the bonkers wars he kept inventing (or buying from other mad countries). He said he objected to paid for education and everyone was entitled to the same levels of publicly funded shooling, while objecting to private funding, but sent his own kinds to privately funded schools. Nobody minds about any of the things he did, including attaching his tongue to the nether regions of that mad old bastard that used to be in charge of America. B liar's sole crime is claiming one thing and doing another, as above. It's what enemies do, and it's what traitors do.

That kind of lying might even be acceptable if it was ultimately for the public good - bit the weeks and the years have gone by, and the evidence clearly indicates that we were right. No good has been done for Britain, or the West in general, by lying, or by attacking the wrong target. Blair has devalued a job that even Maggie Thatcher managed to leave with some tatters of dignity, and the West now looks as stupid as its imagined enemies. Nice work.

tamla617
09-21-2010, 03:39 PM
stubase 1 all the book and lecture circuit stuff coud only have been done after he left office.a bulk of his stash was there while he was running the country (into ruin) and his wife was never slow to see a nice little earner.
but i'd rather be where i am with my wife than a millionaire and have her following me around.

bankhouse....i know i'm going off thread here but i dont understand what you mean by maggie leaving with some tatters of dignity.in the meantime i will remind you that when the labour party would have just talked.with her leadership we went 8,000 miles to get the falklands back.took guts and not one lie.

bankhousedave
09-23-2010, 05:55 PM
Plenty of guts and no lies from the soldiers, Tamla. Thatcher wouldn't listen to any peaceful solutions. I used to think this was to divert attention from the disasters of monetarism, the dismantling of our manufacturing industries, and the undermining of our social fabric, but I maligned her. She just wouldn't listen, full stop (period). Blair was one of those who thought her unwavering determination to consider herself right regardless of all evidence to the contrary made her a grreat leader. I was not the other one.

tamla617
09-24-2010, 01:18 PM
there wasnt a peaceful solution.either tell galtieri to get his troops off soveriegn territory,no deal needed.or wait a couple of weeks we'll be down there (i was in the airforce then)and shift you off.maggie didnt need an excuse,british territory had been invaded.let that slide,then what signal does that send.
british dependants being held prisoner.
dismantling of the british manufacturing industries.this is not what she did.she did get rid of the miners once and for all.it was about time too.no sympathy with them what so ever.the unions,all of them needed reigning in,they were wrecking the country.flying pickets,demarcation etc and infiltrated by communists (the americans are gonna love this!).
the pole tax was the cock up that got her ousted as the tory leader and therfore out of office,and it was and it (pole tax)needed getting rid of.the old rates system was unfare and out dated,but pole tax wasnt the way to go.
other than that,she left 10 downing with the country in a better state than when she won the '79 election.
i think we'll have to agree to disagree on this bankhouse and get back to the music!

StuBass1
09-24-2010, 03:12 PM
Maggie didn't take no S***. She'd shove one of those medium range missles up A-Jads A** if she were around today.

bankhousedave
09-24-2010, 05:25 PM
I'm back with the music already, Tamla. Will you lead?

tamla617
09-24-2010, 06:16 PM
i'm already there dave!