Should Blair Stand Trial

[Streetwalker]

With the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war just a few days into what will be a long drawn out affair it appears that evidence is already growing against the Triator Blair.
Well, we already knew we went to war on a lie ,Blair took a punt and got it wrong ,or did he?
Evidence is growing that he knew that Iraq was no threat and was acting in cohorts with the Bush family .

Should Blair stand trail ?

[Midas]

With the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war just a few days into what will be a long drawn out affair it appears that evidence is already growing against the Triator Blair.
Well, we already knew we went to war on a lie ,Blair took a punt and got it wrong ,or did he?
Evidence is growing that he knew that Iraq was no threat and was acting in cohorts with the Bush family .

Should Blair stand trail ?

Yes; from what I've seen so far there's already enough evidence to suggest that he should indeed stand trial.

[Opinionated]

yes he damn well should! He won't though, we all know that.

[British]

With the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war just a few days into what will be a long drawn out affair it appears that evidence is already growing against the Triator Blair.
Well, we already knew we went to war on a lie ,Blair took a punt and got it wrong ,or did he?
Evidence is growing that he knew that Iraq was no threat and was acting in cohorts with the Bush family .

Should Blair stand trail ?

I think in the bottom of us, we Brits knew he went to war on a lie when it happened. But the media had a good way of making it look like the right thing to do.
But yes, Blair should stand trial. And if proven guilty he should go the same way Saddam went.
How many of our service men and woman lost their lives for this lie?

[Citizen Smith]

You mean as well as Bush right?
Its obvious who's idea it was.

[British]

You mean as well as Bush right?
Its obvious who's idea it was.

Yes, naturally. But I was refaring to Blair, as this thread is about him
.

[angelcountry]

Is tony blair above the law ?

I think every citizen has to stand trial like we do if we do according to hybrid posted to our home by the prosecutors.

[Streetwalker]

Refering to the news this week that gang members will be guilty by association to any crimes committed by fellow gang members does this mean we will be able to get shot of the whole liebour party (happy days) or at least the top table,as they stood by and did nothing!

[British]

Refering to the news this week that gang members will be guilty by association to any crimes committed by fellow gang members does this mean we will be able to get shot of the whole liebour party (happy days) or at least the top table,as they stood by and did nothing!

Liebour have done so much damage that they all want draging out by the scruff of their necks and be given the Water Cure.

[angelcountry]

Refering to the news this week that gang members will be guilty by association to any crimes committed by fellow gang members does this mean we will be able to get shot of the whole liebour party (happy days) or at least the top table,as they stood by and did nothing!

Your chands up there is like a case of money loundering convcited recently in ireland having got the fact proven by virtue of factum probans and probarandums the one and only person caught did pay the price of greed, well ignorant of the law or crime is not an excuses of a pain in the ass in our criminal justice system.

Every country of the world draft their fixed rule customs and principle based on ''equality'' before the law i see no reason why weapons of mass distruction of humanity which is classified as crime against humanity we excape our law in the 21st century world contrary to the case of o'brien V Parker.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

With the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war just a few days into what will be a long drawn out affair it appears that evidence is already growing against the Triator Blair.
Well, we already knew we went to war on a lie ,Blair took a punt and got it wrong ,or did he?
Evidence is growing that he knew that Iraq was no threat and was acting in cohorts with the Bush family . Should Blair stand trail ?

Hi,

there is absolutely no doubt that Anthony Charles Lynton Blair should stand trial together with Jack Straw, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, John Prescott, John Scarlet, Alistair Campbell and others who were party and privy to the lies and deliberate deception leading to an unlawful preemptive strike on a Sovereign Nation resulting in a Crime Against Humanity and numerous War Crimes - not least of all was the blitz kreig of the obscene 'Shock & Awe' campaign that rained down missiles, bombs and a fire storm on a civilian City in a totally unprovoked attack.

I also believe that on the counts of Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes the death penalty should pertain for a guilty verdict on either count as an example to the leaders of other tin pot regimes who might be tempted to attack other Countries without mandate or reason.

Any time sentence should run consecutively NOT concurrently.

There is absolutely no doubt that from May in the preceding year Blair's team KNEW Hussein had NO WMDs nor did he ever have delivery systems.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Barry]

It would be interesting to see Tony Blair on trial, but where? - The Hague?
Give him bail until it is ready to proceed maybe?

Should he stand trial?
I don't think so, not because he did not do wrong, but because it would be a total waste of time and money, ending in a not guilty verdict, delivered by his friends in high places.

We don't think the court in the Hague is perfection of justice, do we?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

It would be interesting to see Tony Blair on trial, but where? - The Hague?
Give him bail until it is ready to proceed maybe?

Should he stand trial?
I don't think so, not because he did not do wrong, but because it would be a total waste of time and money, ending in a not guilty verdict, delivered by his friends in high places.

We don't think the court in the Hague is perfection of justice, do we?

Hi,

to abrogate on our responsibility to ensure justice is surely in and of itself at least moral turpitude but more likely collusion in a crime AFTER the event.

If the Courts ARE delivering different standards of justice then anarcic mob rule must be a legitimate alternative - are you advocating lynch our politicians when they HAVE committed a crime, as Blair indisputably has - I crime that has cost about 1.4Million lives so far!

I suggest we not only have faith in our courts but put on trial ANYONE seeking to abuse or subvert them.

Regards,
Greg L-W

[politicalpaul]

Totally agree with the consensus on this thread. Blair went to war because he didn't want to side with the dispised by british press Shroeder and Chirac who were against the war, if he had of done tabloids would have probably deflected to the torys.

However we can all see now why he went to war and that it was the wrong decision and yes he should stand trial, as a point a poster before me made, look at the thousands of lives lost in this 'pointless war'

Anyway, I most certinally am looking forward to Mr Blair giving evidence in January is it?

--
Best Wishes
Paul.

Blog: Political Paul

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Totally agree with the consensus on this thread. Blair went to war because he didn't want to side with the dispised by british press Shroeder and Chirac who were against the war, if he had of done tabloids would have probably deflected to the torys.

I would contend that he did NOT side with Shroeder & Chirac BECAUSE it was the EUro the war was all about!

There was absolutely no other reason for war than to re-establish the US$ as reserve currency of choice for global trade.

However we can all see now why he went to war and that it was the wrong decision

Astonishingly there are still some people around who are dull enough to think it has something to do with controlling the sources of oil!!!

and yes he should stand trial, as a point a poster before me made, look at the thousands of lives lost in this 'pointless war'

Sadly it is not 1,000s that Blair is responsible for killing but about 1.4 MILLION!!!

[QUOTE=politicalpaul;93019]Anyway, I most certinally am looking forward to Mr Blair giving evidence in January is it?{/QUOTE]

I am NOT as I fear he may subsequently claim that the matter has all been dealt with at an inquiry and because it had no legal teath and did not have him executed for his war crimes and crimes against humanity he is in some way exhonourated. Alternatively IF we can get Justice and he is brought to trial he may TRY to claim he can not have a fair trial as it has been prejudiced by the inquiry!
--

Best Wishes Paul. Blog: Political Paul

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[DTE]

It would be interesting to see Tony Blair on trial, but where? - The Hague?
Give him bail until it is ready to proceed maybe?

Should he stand trial?
I don't think so, not because he did not do wrong, but because it would be a total waste of time and money, ending in a not guilty verdict, delivered by his friends in high places.

We don't think the court in the Hague is perfection of justice, do we?

Why bother trying him the Hague? As you say, nothing will come of it. The truth is that after Blair met with Bush at warmongers ranch (or whatever its called) 3 weeks before the war, the decision was made THERE AND THEN and nothing that happened after would have any relevance. We were going to war. Let us not forget the blatent lies that floated around at the time and since.

• 42 minutes.
• WMDs
• links to Al Queda and global terrorism
• the suspicious death of Dr David Kelly

Since that criminal decision was made, the lives of British people, both military and civilian, here and abroad, have been placed in increased danger. Should he be placed on trial? Hell yes. But lets do it here. He perpetraited a deceit against the British people, which has cost hundreds of lives and no doubt will cost hundreds more. I say we charge him for treason in a British court and see what happens.

[British]

I say we charge him for treason in a British court and see what happens.

I say we charge him for treason and take him to the Tower for the same end that Anne Boleyn met!

[uncon]

Blair won't stand trial and neither should he.

A trial says that an issue is dealt with....to have such a thing done and dusted has implications that are too huge. For a start if Blair is tried, the liklihood of conviction is minimal....to not convict will effectively create case law in that respect...we can't afford that. To convict will ensure that every other prime minister is handcuffed by that law and effectively you contradict the current terrorism laws.

Have the enquiry, accept the **** ups and mistakes and learn from them (primarily by not going into a country that even militaristic Russia couldn't win - oops too late)

[pauli007001]

Blair won't stand trial and neither should he.

A trial says that an issue is dealt with....to have such a thing done and dusted has implications that are too huge. For a start if Blair is tried, the liklihood of conviction is minimal....to not convict will effectively create case law in that respect...we can't afford that. To convict will ensure that every other prime minister is handcuffed by that law and effectively you contradict the current terrorism laws.

Have the enquiry, accept the **** ups and mistakes and learn from them (primarily by not going into a country that even militaristic Russia couldn't win - oops too late)

You appear to be confused between Iraq and Afganistan.Militaristic Russia never deployed forces to Iraq.They did to Afghanistan.

The Taliban govnt of Afghanistan in 2001 gave support and assistance to an organised terror group that had attacked the USA.Britain deployed troops in that conflict in accordance with its NATO membership agreements.If one is attacked all are attacked used to be the rule.The Iraq war was wrong(IMO) a Bad decision but not (IMO) a crime.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Why bother trying him the Hague?

The Hague provides the recognised International Court - regardless of the outcome he can be subsequently tried before the British Courts for his direct breech of British Law.

As you say, nothing will come of it.

It is the duty and responsibility of the Court to deliver Justice and it is the duty of the peoples to ensure they do.

The truth is that after Blair met with Bush at warmongers ranch (or whatever its called) 3 weeks before the war,

THe decision was made in the preceding May.

The speech to Westminster of September was a shot across the bows of France which France was too stupid or hubristic or arrogant to understand.
The final decision became irreversible on the 4th. 8th. & 12th. December and the date was decided by the 20th.
The Drowning Street dossier was put out over the signature by John Scarlett for which he received a Knighthod.
The Drowning Street dossier was exposed to Jon Snow at 14:50hrs. The feed substantiated and confirmed at about 17:30hrs.
Kirsty Wark advised at 18:05hrs. with additional material supplied. Including invasion dates.
Newsnight decided to aid security by witholding the invasion date.
the decision was made THERE AND THEN and nothing that happened after would have any relevance. We were going to war. Let us not forget the blatent lies that floated around at the time and since.

• 42 minutes.
• WMDs

• Both shown to be erroneous on the evening of the Blair speech and to Bernard Jenkin the following morning.
  
  

  to Al Queda and global terrorism

  Never established mainly because it was NOT true.
  
  

• the suspicious death of Dr David Kelly

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

You appear to be confused between Iraq and Afganistan.Militaristic Russia never deployed forces to Iraq.They did to Afghanistan.

The Taliban govnt of Afghanistan in 2001 gave support and assistance to an organised terror group that had attacked the USA.Britain deployed troops in that conflict in accordance with its NATO membership agreements.If one is attacked all are attacked used to be the rule.The Iraq war was wrong(IMO) a Bad decision but not (IMO) a crime.

Hi,

astonishingly even now there is absolutely no evidence that either The Taliban or the Pashtun, the tribe from which they come, had the slightest involvement with Al Quaida or any other external so called 'terror' group.

The ONLY organised terrorism in Afghanistan was in fact the Mujahadeen largely also Pashtun who had allied with America and been armed by America during the invasion by the USSR - going on subsequently to form the backbone of The Taliban.

Understanding of the war in Afghanistan by the Generals and Politicians of Britain and America could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a felt tip pen.

There is no understanding of the tribal nature of the region nor the structure of inter tribal relations through Clan allegiances.

It is a matter of time until Britain and America are forced out in ignominy as Britain has already been in Iraq.

The terms of NATO were not complied with for the invasion.

Perhaps better dealt with in another thread if anyone is interested!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Blair won't stand trial and neither should he.

A trial says that an issue is dealt with....to have such a thing done and dusted has implications that are too huge. For a start if Blair is tried, the liklihood of conviction is minimal....to not convict will effectively create case law in that respect...we can't afford that. To convict will ensure that every other prime minister is handcuffed by that law and effectively you contradict the current terrorism laws.

Have the enquiry, accept the **** ups and mistakes and learn from them (primarily by not going into a country that even militaristic Russia couldn't win - oops too late)

Hi,

I agree the outline of your comment but fear of failure of our Courts to deliver Justice should never preclude our efforts to obtain it.

In view of the criminal irresponsibility of Blair perhaps the world would have been better if he was in hand cuffs.

The current terrorism laws are unworkable drivel.

There are too many troops and too much kit in Afghanistan - what is needed is brains NOT brawn.

Britain & America clearly have absolutely no understanding of what they are doing or why let alone how in Afghanistan - on that basis a retreat immediately is infinitely better than being driven out later.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Kiwi 1691]

You appear to be confused between Iraq and Afganistan.Militaristic Russia never deployed forces to Iraq.They did to Afghanistan.

The Taliban govnt of Afghanistan in 2001 gave support and assistance to an organised terror group that had attacked the USA.Britain deployed troops in that conflict in accordance with its NATO membership agreements.If one is attacked all are attacked used to be the rule.The Iraq war was wrong(IMO) a Bad decision but not (IMO) a crime.

True Pauli, Britain really had to support the US no-matter what the gov t thought about the War.

Britain and the USA are allies under NATO aren't they.

So Britain helps the USA when needed and the USA helps Britain when needed. If Britain had not supported the US in Iraq would you imagine the USA jumping to militarily help Britain if needed?


That is what allies do, for example during the Vietnam War the govt didn't want to get involved militarily. One of the reasons they did was under the ANZUS treaty we were expected to support the US just as they were expected to support us.

[pauli007001]

Hi,

astonishingly even now there is absolutely no evidence that either The Taliban or the Pashtun, the tribe from which they come, had the slightest involvement with Al Quaida or any other external so called 'terror' group.

The ONLY organised terrorism in Afghanistan was in fact the Mujahadeen largely also Pashtun who had allied with America and been armed by America during the invasion by the USSR - going on subsequently to form the backbone of The Taliban.

Understanding of the war in Afghanistan by the Generals and Politicians of Britain and America could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a felt tip pen.

There is no understanding of the tribal nature of the region nor the structure of inter tribal relations through Clan allegiances.

It is a matter of time until Britain and America are forced out in ignominy as Britain has already been in Iraq.

The terms of NATO were not complied with for the invasion.

Perhaps better dealt with in another thread if anyone is interested!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

The Taliban are not FROM the Pashtun, they do live amongst the pashtun.The taliban are from many tribes and are strict adherents of radical islamic teaching.

There is Evidence that the Taliban government allowed Bin Ladin and his organisation to reide in safety in their country, they refused to hand him over to US justice when requested(after he took responsibility for the 911 atttacks).The US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban were allied of the enemy, they were the enemy.

I would say that UK and US forces have complete knowlege of the tribal nature of the regions of afghanistan, i would say also that you havnt a clue about afghanistan.It is the British and American forces that are often living amongst the Tribal peoples of thet country, including many occasions in which Pashtun tribesmen have offered assistance to injured americans and even military assistance.
You know nothing about Afghanistan.In comparison to you i am an expert and i know little enough but i have at least seen the place.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

The Taliban are not FROM the Pashtun, they do live amongst the pashtun.The taliban are from many tribes and are strict adherents of radical islamic teaching.

There is Evidence that the Taliban government allowed Bin Ladin and his organisation to reide in safety in their country, they refused to hand him over to US justice when requested(after he took responsibility for the 911 atttacks).The US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban were allied of the enemy, they were the enemy.

I would say that UK and US forces have complete knowlege of the tribal nature of the regions of afghanistan, i would say also that you havnt a clue about afghanistan.It is the British and American forces that are often living amongst the Tribal peoples of thet country, including many occasions in which Pashtun tribesmen have offered assistance to injured americans and even military assistance.
You know nothing about Afghanistan.In comparison to you i am an expert and i know little enough but i have at least seen the place.

Hi,

If it pleases you to believe that I guess if that is a common understanding then no wonder the achievement to date has been abject failure.

Your understanding of the situation is shown to be limited as you seem to think the military know what they are doing!

Why then have they lost so many men and achieved so little?

Why do they hold absolutely no secure territory.

Why then were they unable to even organise an election.

How come after so long have they made NO progress.

There is not TO THIS DAY one shred of evidence that the Taliban aided ANYONE relative to 9/11.

Where is ther ANY evidence that The Pashtun or the militant Taliban EVER were in a position to hand over any member of AlQaeda - there is NO firm evidence that Bin Laden was in Pashtun controlled territory in Afghanistan.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Midas]

Blair won't stand trial and neither should he.

A trial says that an issue is dealt with....to have such a thing done and dusted has implications that are too huge. For a start if Blair is tried, the liklihood of conviction is minimal....to not convict will effectively create case law in that respect...we can't afford that. To convict will ensure that every other prime minister is handcuffed by that law and effectively you contradict the current terrorism laws.

Have the enquiry, accept the **** ups and mistakes and learn from them (primarily by not going into a country that even militaristic Russia couldn't win - oops too late)

I see your point on the constitutional aspects, and in general I'd agree with you that such an action could well have huge implications. However I do think that in this instance, and in any future cases, where there is clear and unequivocal evidence that a PM knew prior to a declaration of war being made that it was based on demonstrably unfounded information and therefore illegal, there is a case to be made for a trial. I know there's a fine line between knowing and presuming, but from what I've seen so far in this instance, that knowledge was certain.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,

can we return to topic!

Should Blair Stand Trial

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[angelcountry]

The new european president has emerge so who cares by the his friend john did it what does he derived in the major government ?

[uncon]

You appear to be confused between Iraq and Afganistan.Militaristic Russia never deployed forces to Iraq.They did to Afghanistan.

The Taliban govnt of Afghanistan in 2001 gave support and assistance to an organised terror group that had attacked the USA.Britain deployed troops in that conflict in accordance with its NATO membership agreements.If one is attacked all are attacked used to be the rule.The Iraq war was wrong(IMO) a Bad decision but not (IMO) a crime.

There is no confusion whatsoever.

Although I am enjoying your fairy story as regards this latest war. The assumption that all wars are different is akin to saying a pony and a horse have vastly different internal organs

I'm sorry but part of me is thinking that America can actually get over themself when I don't recall us asking for the same class of indignation when the financial heart of London was repeatedly bombed by the IRA who happily related their USA funding (Yay me who avoided mentioning the blitz!)

I'm also somewhat confused as to why you are attempting to attack my post by agreeing with me as regards Iraq.

[pauli007001]

Hi,

If it pleases you to believe that I guess if that is a common understanding then no wonder the achievement to date has been abject failure.

Your understanding of the situation is shown to be limited as you seem to think the military know what they are doing!

Why then have they lost so many men and achieved so little?

Why do they hold absolutely no secure territory.

Why then were they unable to even organise an election.

How come after so long have they made NO progress.

There is not TO THIS DAY one shred of evidence that the Taliban aided ANYONE relative to 9/11.

Where is ther ANY evidence that The Pashtun or the militant Taliban EVER were in a position to hand over any member of AlQaeda - there is NO firm evidence that Bin Laden was in Pashtun controlled territory in Afghanistan.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Like i have already told you, i have BEEN there, i have seen the majority of Afghans overwhelmingly in support of the British troops in Afghanistan.You are filling your head with info written by whack job conspitacy theorists in tin foil hats on the internet but i guess birds of a feather and all that.

The Taliban government when asked to hand over BL did nt say sorry we cant do that, we dont know where he is did they?

The point blank refused because he was an ally.In the early fighting between the allies and the taliban many of the fighters alongside the talib were from Al quaida, very few of them were even afghans(ask any afghans) often it was they that did the talibans dirty work for them.

As i have stated before the Taliban are not specifically pashtun, the Taliban were the national government of Afghanistan.Bin laden could have been in many tribal regions in the south and central areas of Afghanistan.Look where there are mountains and there he could be.

[pauli007001]

There is no confusion whatsoever.

Although I am enjoying your fairy story as regards this latest war. The assumption that all wars are different is akin to saying a pony and a horse have vastly different internal organs

I'm sorry but part of me is thinking that America can actually get over themself when I don't recall us asking for the same class of indignation when the financial heart of London was repeatedly bombed by the IRA who happily related their USA funding (Yay me who avoided mentioning the blitz!)

I'm also somewhat confused as to why you are attempting to attack my post by agreeing with me as regards Iraq.

So all wars are the same?
Two different wars for 2 different reasons(although For Iraq which is the point being discussed here there are some reasons that are the same).
Iraq never had a russian invasion, we are discussing Iraq, not places that were invaded by russia and later by the USA as you seem to think.Keep flapping around like a fish out of water though, it amuses me.

The USA did not fund the IRA.
Some americans did but not the USA, the IRA also didnt have a bolt hole in which their terrorists were welcomed and comforted by the National government of that nation that offered a bolt hole as the talib government of Afganistan did for Binladens groups.

Big gaping difference in that war too, i guess all wars are not the same, does it make you feel silly being wrong?

Sure makes you look it!!!

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Like i have already told you, i have BEEN there, i have seen the majority of Afghans overwhelmingly in support of the British troops in Afghanistan.You are filling your head with info written by whack job conspitacy theorists in tin foil hats on the internet but i guess birds of a feather and all that.

The Taliban government when asked to hand over BL did nt say sorry we cant do that, we dont know where he is did they?

The point blank refused because he was an ally.In the early fighting between the allies and the taliban many of the fighters alongside the talib were from Al quaida, very few of them were even afghans(ask any afghans) often it was they that did the talibans dirty work for them.

As i have stated before the Taliban are not specifically pashtun, the Taliban were the national government of Afghanistan.Bin laden could have been in many tribal regions in the south and central areas of Afghanistan.Look where there are mountains and there he could be.

Hi,

I believe your opinion to be limited, I consider your conclusions to be false and I believe your assertions are unfounded.

That you seem incapable of discussion without being gratuitously offensive gives me little confidence in your views.

can we return to topic!

Should Blair Stand Trial

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

So all wars are the same?
Two different wars for 2 different reasons(although For Iraq which is the point being discussed here there are some reasons that are the same).
Iraq never had a russian invasion, we are discussing Iraq, not places that were invaded by russia and later by the USA as you seem to think.Keep flapping around like a fish out of water though, it amuses me.

The USA did not fund the IRA.
Some americans did but not the USA, the IRA also didnt have a bolt hole in which their terrorists were welcomed and comforted by the National government of that nation that offered a bolt hole as the talib government of Afganistan did for Binladens groups.

Big gaping difference in that war too, i guess all wars are not the same, does it make you feel silly being wrong?

Sure makes you look it!!!

Does it make you feel very powerful being gratuitously rude to people on a keyboard?

I believe you will find we are aware that every American did not fund The IRA - however when a murderous Irish terrorist is a guest in America, is made welcome in the White House by the president and his aids there is a tendency when he comes back with money to be not far from wrong when one says Funded by America.

can we return to topic!

Should Blair Stand Trial

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[pauli007001]

Hi,

I believe your opinion to be limited, I consider your conclusions to be false and I believe your assertions are unfounded.

That you seem incapable of discussion without being gratuitously offensive gives me little confidence in your views.

can we return to topic!

Should Blair Stand Trial

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Unlike your own of course!!!
tinfoilehatteredly offensive!!!Not forgetting retarded!!

[Midas]

This is not a discussion on Iraq, Afghanistan, the IRA..... and whilst those might be peripheral to the main topic, it's a discussion titled "Should Blair Stand Trial", so can we please get back on topic or risk the thread being closed.

[Expounder]

Hi,

can we return to topic!

Should Blair Stand Trial

Regards,
Greg L-W.

If Tony Blair should stand trial so should the whole of the Tory front bench who at the time supported the invasion, accomplices to the act. now wise after the event. The net widens.

It was clear that Bush jnr had an issue with Saddam, daddies unfinished business, from the first gulf war. He and Blair were both lobbied intensively by the Marsh Arabs and the Shiite's to invade over the human rights abuses and the attempted genocide of the Marsh Arabs.

Bush has Saddam in his sights when he was.................... "elected"

[Tacitus]

Hi,


Your understanding of the situation is shown to be limited as you seem to think the military know what they are doing!

Why then have they lost so many men and achieved so little?

Why do they hold absolutely no secure territory.

Because they are not being given the men and equipment, NOR the "political approval" to do what they are best at, and that is getting rid of the enemy.

You can NOT fight a war wearing boxing gloves, you need a chain mailed fist, and the troops are not been given that.

[Midas]

If Tony Blair should stand trial so should the whole of the Tory front bench who at the time supported the invasion, accomplices to the act. now wise after the event. The net widens.

But were they as aware of the illegality of the invasion as Tony Blair was, or were they simply supporting it on grounds of the public knowledge available at the time, which we now know as being untrue?

[Scooby]

The answer in my book is simple, if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges then yes, he should face trial, if he broke the laws of the land then he should face the jury.

[angelcountry]

There is no confusion whatsoever.

Although I am enjoying your fairy story as regards this latest war. The assumption that all wars are different is akin to saying a pony and a horse have vastly different internal organs

I'm sorry but part of me is thinking that America can actually get over themself when I don't recall us asking for the same class of indignation when the financial heart of London was repeatedly bombed by the IRA who happily related their USA funding (Yay me who avoided mentioning the blitz!)

I'm also somewhat confused as to why you are attempting to attack my post by agreeing with me as regards Iraq.

You're like one of my friend steve that like to behave like a kagaroo and got cut up with false assumption of a desire fiction, for example is a like a person that does 4 assignemnt and is 4/3 then another steve comes in and cock and bull things because of what, they believe there is no redress whereas there is, so they fail in there objective desire.


What i dont like is that, people are saying a person that committed a crime against humanity like tony blair and co, should be tried but, i think there is a bit of fairy tail really because there is no indictement issued to date on his name rather than malices aforethoughts.

[Expounder]

But were they as aware of the illegality of the invasion as Tony Blair was, or were they simply supporting it on grounds of the public knowledge available at the time, which we now know as being untrue?

This thread is interesting but a lot of hot air because Tony Blair won't stand trial other than by public opinion.

The biggest crime he committed in most peoples minds on this forum who would like him to stand trial, is that he created an impenetrable shield against a Tory resurgence while he was in office.

The hatred of these people for Blair existed long before the Iraq war for home grown political reasons having, listened to many of them after his election. These anti people were stunned and muted at first but quickly made him enemy No1.

[angelcountry]

This thread is interesting but a lot of hot air because Tony Blair won't stand trial other than by public opinion.

The biggest crime he committed in most peoples minds on this forum who would like him to stand trial, is that he created an impenetrable shield against a Tory resurgence while he was in office.

The hatred of these people for Blair existed long before the Iraq war for home grown political reasons having, listened to many of them after his election. These anti people were stunned and muted at first but quickly made him enemy No1.

Well i am not in support of a person that commit a crime against humanity for real, but is like those hater of other mankind that believe in distruction but lack the necessary tools or lack a locus standi, they are always upset, they can do anything include suppression of evidence, illegal entrant to steal evidence, well is still believed that, anybody who commits a crime against humanity must not walk freely in our street of arm rubbers.

[DTE]

If Tony Blair should stand trial so should the whole of the Tory front bench who at the time supported the invasion, accomplices to the act. now wise after the event. The net widens.

The distinction is people now assume that whilst the Tory front bench, the cabinet and the British people were lied to by Blair and Co, Blair himself was in possesion of the facts (or as much 'in the know' as Bush was anyway) and he chose to deceive the country with these fabrications. Whether there is any truth to that is kind of irrelevant, as that is the perception, and as Blair built his whole time in office around the concept of perception/spin, it seems only poetic justice that this should be his undoing.

It was clear that Bush jnr had an issue with Saddam, daddies unfinished business, from the first gulf war. He and Blair were both lobbied intensively by the Marsh Arabs and the Shiite's to invade over the human rights abuses and the attempted genocide of the Marsh Arabs.

Bush has Saddam in his sights when he was.................... "elected"

I agree that any excuse was being sought for invading and removing Saddam as soon as Bush the Second took office. We've heard from the Chilcott enquiry that merely days after 9/11 the Bush Administration were looking to connect the attack to Sadddam. People can bring up the usual reasoning behind removing Saddam (evil dictator, used chemical weapons, etc) but the reasoning AT THE TIME is all that matters, and those reasons were simply LIES. Moving the goalposts now, by saying that those LIES are not important is a dangerous excercise in obfuscation (they're doing the same with Afgnanistan). Its just a diversion tactic to throw us off laying the blame where it is due.

[Expounder]

The distinction is people now assume that whilst the Tory front bench, the cabinet and the British people were lied to by Blair and Co, Blair himself was in possesion of the facts (or as much 'in the know' as Bush was anyway) and he chose to deceive the country with these fabrications. Whether there is any truth to that is kind of irrelevant, as that is the perception, and as Blair built his whole time in office around the concept of perception/spin, it seems only poetic justice that this should be his undoing.

What I'm saying is that he won't be going on trial except in the public's perception of him.

I felt that Thatcher should have been tried a the Old Bailey. For the damagage she inflicted on her own country. But thats just my opinion.

I agree that any excuse was being sought for invading and removing Saddam as soon as Bush the Second took office. We've heard from the Chilcott enquiry that merely days after 9/11 the Bush Administration were looking to connect the attack to Sadddam. People can bring up the usual reasoning behind removing Saddam (evil dictator, used chemical weapons, etc) but the reasoning AT THE TIME is all that matters, and those reasons were simply LIES. Moving the goalposts now, by saying that those LIES are not important is a dangerous excercise in obfuscation (they're doing the same with Afgnanistan). Its just a diversion tactic to throw us off laying the blame where it is due.

There are for and against for the action in Afghanistan. Most NATO members have deemed it necessary to be involved as do most military leaders. Training camps were a safe haven for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan which were used for organising international attacks against the west and moderate Muslim countries

Even if the country is pacified I know it won't stop some individual terrorist groups from committing acts of terror but it will destroy the "base" or echelon from which the terrorists were allowed a free rein to organise train and direct and execute the mass murder of innocent civilians.

The world is at war with religious maniacs, while it may never be won completely, if we sit on our hands and do nothing to preempt attacks many more innocents will be murdered.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

If Tony Blair should stand trial so should the whole of the Tory front bench who at the time supported the invasion, accomplices to the act. now wise after the event. The net widens.

It was clear that Bush jnr had an issue with Saddam, daddies unfinished business, from the first gulf war. He and Blair were both lobbied intensively by the Marsh Arabs and the Shiite's to invade over the human rights abuses and the attempted genocide of the Marsh Arabs.

Bush has Saddam in his sights when he was.................... "elected"

Hi,

clearly your prejudice has subsumed your reason.

The Tories misguidedly trusted the lies of Blair and his corrupt cronies and based upon the false intel. provided they did as Her Majesty's LOYAL Opposition always does when faced with war and trusted the Government.

However absolutely irrefutably Tony Blair and his cronies lied to Parliament and the peoples an action which led to Crimes Against Humanity and the murder of over 1,000,000 people so far!

Do not let unfounded prejudice cloud your judgement.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Because they are not being given the men and equipment, NOR the "political approval" to do what they are best at, and that is getting rid of the enemy.

You can NOT fight a war wearing boxing gloves, you need a chain mailed fist, and the troops are not been given that.

Hi,

there is absolutely no shortage of equipment for which the politicians are responsible.

The senior officers were asked if they could carry out the task and due to lack of knowledge and understanding and a hide bound obsession with fighting todays wars with yesterdays methods they are making a total mess of the job - just as they did in Iraq.

There is absolutely no lack of availability of helicopters merely a desire to have the unworkable Super Lynx which is not remotely suitable and WILL when it eventually materialises cost approaching £20M and be unusable.

The main use of choppers in Afghanistan is at night moving bodies around.

It is only a matter of time before Britain leaves ignominiously - perhaps it can be explained why, if we are short of material has the Ministry of Defeat squandered £1.5M on a glossy magazine and £1/2M on a Ferris Wheel in a funfair for women which women have no desire or security to use!

Do list the achievement of the British Military in Afghanistan to date and what YOU expect in the long run - minded that we have failed to control or Liberate or democratise or manage Helmand let alone about 36 more Provinces to go!

Beware of the lies of this Government now that it has no job merely being a rubber stamping office at Westminster for our government in Brussels they will have little to do beyond lies and propaganda!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

You're like one of my friend steve that like to behave like a kagaroo and got cut up with false assumption of a desire fiction, for example is a like a person that does 4 assignemnt and is 4/3 then another steve comes in and cock and bull things because of what, they believe there is no redress whereas there is, so they fail in there objective desire.


What i dont like is that, people are saying a person that committed a crime against humanity like tony blair and co, should be tried but, i think there is a bit of fairy tail really because there is no indictement issued to date on his name rather than malices aforethoughts.

Hi,

every journey must start with the first bold steps - it is time our Government acted responsibly and brought Blair and his cronies to court for their indisputable Crimes Against Humanity, Muderers & War Crimes.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

This thread is interesting but a lot of hot air because Tony Blair won't stand trial other than by public opinion.

The biggest crime he committed in most peoples minds on this forum who would like him to stand trial, is that he created an impenetrable shield against a Tory resurgence while he was in office.

The hatred of these people for Blair existed long before the Iraq war for home grown political reasons having, listened to many of them after his election. These anti people were stunned and muted at first but quickly made him enemy No1.

Hi,

the outcome and his lies and the crimes against humanity and the 1M+ people for whom he is guilty of murder managed to make him a global enemy.

That Prescott in running the government moved him around like a pawn to keep him out of the way on the basis of damage limitation is clearly visible.

That the economy has been in the hands of an economic illiterate for the last dozen years is reflected by the balance sheet and the emasculation of Westminster.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Opinionated]

That Prescott in running the government moved him around like a pawn to keep him out of the way on the basis of damage limitation is clearly visible.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...aughing025.gif

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...aughing025.gif

Hi,

Having a temper tantrum and rolling on the floor does not gainsay the facts.

Minded that Julia Middleton ran Common Purpose out of his offices - he had had 3 terms as an MEP having been one of the Communist proteges of Barbara Castle as with Straw, Hewitt and others.

You overlook the massive amount of money he has amassed as he accrued power. He was a placeman for one of the most militant unions and was closely associated with The Communist Party throughout his life.

As with Kinnock and others who sought financial and intellectual aid from the USSR and as you will appreciate CND was funded hugely by Russia during Baroness Ashton's tenure of treasurer.

Rarely is politics all it seems - Machievelli did not have sole lien on deceit for power.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Regards,
Greg L-W.