Blair cancelled his book signing

The Highwayman · 06-09-2010 07:28PM

owenc wrote: »

Anywonder, after what went on down south, you people should be ashamed.

Ashamed of what?

owenc · 06-09-2010 07:29PM

The Highwayman wrote: »

Ashamed of what?

What the ones did at that thing on the weekend.

Fo Real · 06-09-2010 07:32PM

@ owenc: We're not all thick skulled idiots who get our thrills from cowardly mob violence. A sad day for freedom and democracy when thugs can dictate where a great leader like Blair can and cannot go.

owenc · 06-09-2010 07:33PM

Fo Real wrote: »

@ owenc: We're not all thick skulled idiots who get our thrills from cowardly mob violence. A sad day for freedom and democracy when thugs can dictate where a great leader like Blair can and cannot go.

just saying like.

The Highwayman · 06-09-2010 07:35PM

owenc wrote: »

What the ones did at that thing on the weekend.

Translation please?

Biggins · 06-09-2010 07:37PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

I wouldn't be so shoe-r about that:D

Heel turn up just to spite others.

The Highwayman · 06-09-2010 07:39PM

Fo Real wrote: »

great leader like Blair

Explain?

FlutterinBantam · 06-09-2010 07:43PM

Hopefully the crusties won't stall the progress of real politique.

I just love it.

fcukers who generally never did a days work in their lives,generally never contributed anything but bile and sourness to society, get to set the agenda.

Well Holy God.

If we succumb to these clowns we deserve what we get.

CokaColumbo · 06-09-2010 07:43PM

The fact that Tony Blair cancelled the book signing shows that many/most of the anti-war/anti-Blair opponents are little more than thugs who want to deny the man his free speech by using force and obnoxious carry-on.

Sticky_Fingers · 06-09-2010 07:44PM

Biggins wrote: »

*currently banging head on desk*

Biggins wrote: »

...to give him a good leathering?

Biggins wrote: »

Well as it turned out, they shoe'd him off.

Biggins wrote: »

Heel turn up just to spite others.

Stop banging your head Biggins, I think those puns are a sign of possible brain damage:pac:

Fo Real · 06-09-2010 07:46PM

The Highwayman wrote: »

Explain?

Blair led the Labour Party to three consecutuive election victories. If he wasn't ousted by Brown's supporters in his own party, who knows - he could have won a fourth.

He also achieved the impossible - he got Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley to sit down together and form a government. He brought peace to Northern Ireland.

His greatest achievement however was the removal of one of the world's most dangerous tyrants, Saddam Hussein, for which the world should be grateful. Of course, the lefties would prefer to live in a country under Saddam's compassionate rule :rolleyes:

Biggins · 06-09-2010 07:50PM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Stop banging your head Biggins, I think those puns are a sign of possible brain damage:pac:

One can't damage what's already broken (frying pan in the hands of wife!).

ejmaztec · 06-09-2010 07:56PM

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Stop banging your head Biggins, I think those puns are a sign of possible brain damage:pac:

I find people like you sole-destroying.:(

CokaColumbo · 06-09-2010 07:56PM

Fo Real wrote: »

...His greatest achievement however was the removal of one of the world's most dangerous tyrants, Saddam Hussein, for which the world should be grateful. Of course, the lefties would prefer to live in a country under Saddam's compassionate rule :rolleyes:

And they have the strange logic to align themselves with Palestinian 'freedom fighters', i.e. people who use women, children, schools and hospitals as shields and who call the murder of five Israeli settlers "heroic".

transylman · 06-09-2010 07:57PM

Fo Real wrote: »

He also achieved the impossible - he got Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley to sit down together and form a government. He brought peace to Northern Ireland.

His greatest achievement however was the removal of one of the world's most dangerous tyrants, Saddam Hussein, for which the world should be grateful. Of course, the lefties would prefer to live in a country under Saddam's compassionate rule :rolleyes:

Number of people that died over the whole course of the troubles was 3,526.
Number of Iraqis killed in Iraq war is estimated at least 100,000.

Which one outweighs the other do you think? Add to that his manipulation of intelligence, his promise to Bush in summer 2002 that "whatever you decide to do, I'm with you", his abuse of the UN to legitimise the war, and his scapegoating of the french when he realised he wouldn't get another resolution.

Obviously it wouldn't do his image rehabilitation tour any good to have protests at all his signings.

Nodin · 06-09-2010 07:58PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

fcukers who generally never did a days work in their lives,generally never contributed anything but bile and sourness to society, get to set the agenda.

Just as a matter of interest, how do you know that those who object to Blairs war - on both sides of the water - can be accurately generalised about in such a fashion?

Biggins · 06-09-2010 08:00PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

I find people like you sole-destroying.:(

Maybe what I really need is a good boot to get myself together and sneaker over into the wifes good books!
If that don't work, I'll go see my Doc Martin. Heel be able to re-pair me.

FlutterinBantam · 06-09-2010 08:00PM

Nodin wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, how do you know that those who object to Blairs war - on both sides of the water - can be accurately generalised about in such a fashion?

I have two eyes and two ears buddy.

Donkey Oaty · 06-09-2010 08:01PM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

And they have the strange logic to align themselves with Palestinian 'freedom fighters', i.e. people who use women, children, schools and hospitals as shields and who call the murder of five Israeli settlers "heroic".

Perhaps you are right. But maybe they were allying themselves with the Palestinian people, many of whom don't give a **** about politics but would like to live normal lives?

orourkeda · 06-09-2010 08:02PM

Perhaps he couldnt be bothered his ring

Fo Real · 06-09-2010 08:07PM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

And they have the strange logic to align themselves with Palestinian 'freedom fighters', i.e. people who use women, children, schools and hospitals as shields and who call the murder of five Israeli settlers "heroic".

Haha so true.

You have to laugh at the pinkos who are outraged at Blair "interfering" with Iraqi affairs, when they themselves are sticking their noses into Israeli affairs. If Israel chooses to defend itself against terrorists (as it has the right to) what right does some unemployed bum have to tell the Israeli government they're wrong? The hypocracy of these idiots is amazing.

Nodin · 06-09-2010 08:08PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I have two eyes and two ears buddy.

That makes no sense as an answer, though whether intentional on your part, its hard to say.

Again - how do you know that those against the war - on both sides of the water - can be safely generalised about in such a fashion?

I'm not your "buddy", by the way.

Nodin · 06-09-2010 08:09PM

Fo Real wrote: »

Haha so true.

You have to laugh at the pinkos (...........) of these idiots is amazing.

You're aware that the occupation and colonisation of the territories actually takes place outside Israels borders? Hence the controversy.

CokaColumbo · 06-09-2010 08:10PM

transylman wrote: »

Number of people that died over the whole course of the troubles was 3,526.
Number of Iraqis killed in Iraq war is estimated at least 100,000.

Which one outweighs the other do you think? Add to that his manipulation of intelligence, his promise to Bush in summer 2002 that "whatever you decide to do, I'm with you", his abuse of the UN to legitimise the war, and his scapegoating of the french when he realised he wouldn't get another resolution.

Obviously it wouldn't do his image rehabilitation tour any good to have protests at all his signings.

The war up North was a bitter conflict which lasted 20-30 years. I take my hat off to Blair for playing his part in bringing peace.

He invaded Iraq on the basis that Saddam was a threat to the free world. He was a tyrant and a war criminal who was responsible for inflicting death upon hundreds of thousands of civilians with chemical WMDs.

Although, he got rid of the weapons, he retained both the scientists and facilities necessary to produce WMDs. And importantly, he retained the intent to start producing them again. He deserved to be eliminated from the political landscape.

Today, life is better for ordinary Iraqs. Every single reputable poll taken has reflected that sentiment. Also, as Blair pointed out, the child mortality rate is 1/3 of what it was during Saddam's reign. That means approx. 60,000 children are able to survive each year because of the West. Does that sound like the work of a terrorist tyrant?

Nodin · 06-09-2010 08:15PM

CokaColumbo wrote: »

He invaded Iraq on the basis that Saddam was a threat to the free world.

Really? News to me. I'd say it would be news to him too.

From 2002 wrote:

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle387374.ece

(It should be pointed out that Libya had used its "WMD" - it consisted of gas and napalm - in a war against Chad.)

Mister men · 06-09-2010 08:19PM

And to think some people where laughing at the protesters at the weekend.

FlutterinBantam · 06-09-2010 08:20PM

Nodin wrote: »

That makes no sense as an answer, though whether intentional on your part, its hard to say.

Again - how do you know that those against the war - on both sides of the water - can be safely generalised about in such a fashion?

I'm not your "buddy", by the way.

Makes plenty of sense to me.

I happened to be in O'Connell St. and the 'professional protesters' to me seemed to be crusties who were for the most part unemployable in any function of responsibility.

Organised rabble, marshaled by a geezer who barked out a mantra which the rabble repeated.Seemed to be a Palestinian slant to the crowd, although I doubt if most of them could identify that territory on a map.

Possibly well meaning, if misguided folk.

That was my view on them.

If that appreciation was wrong I apologise, but I feel that most normal taxpaying people would concur with my view.

Jeboa Safari · 06-09-2010 08:20PM

Nodin wrote: »

Really? News to me. I'd say it would be news to him too.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle387374.ece

(It should be pointed out that Libya had used its "WMD" - it consisted of gas and napalm - in a war against Chad.)

Would you have opposed the coalition forces going into Iraq to take him out after the first Gulf War when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

Fo Real · 06-09-2010 08:21PM

Nodin wrote: »

You're aware that the occupation and colonisation of the territories actually takes place outside Israels borders? Hence the controversy.

Hamas fires rockets over the border into Israel, targetting civilians.
Israel fires rockets back, targetting terrorists.

Hamas are the bad guys here. I can't simplify it any more for your infantile mind. You have truly been brainwashed by the beards, pal.

But now we are going OT.

Nodin · 06-09-2010 08:23PM

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

If that appreciation was wrong I apologise,.

It was, and your apology is accepted.

Blair cancelled his book signing

Comments