Should Blair stand trial for war crimes

[thalbergmad]

I certainly hope so. He misled parliament and went to war based on a pack of lies.

I long for the day when he is in court to answer for his crimes, but expect that he still might have enough power to wriggle out of it.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Absolutely he should. The odious little sociopathic turd and his deranged narcissism have contributed significantly to the most serious problems in the world today.

[iansinclair]

No. 

Unless it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt (the standard for criminal cases, by the way) that he deliberately acted contrary to the law and contrary to the information available to him at the time.  I doubt very much that that standard could be met.

Yes, the information was misleading, perhaps, but that is not Mr. Blair's fault (one could argue, I suppose, that to the extent that British and US intelligence was faulty it might be said to be the leaders' fault, but that is a real stretch).

Yes, perhaps the action was at least partly motivated by interests other than a desire to remove a somewhat dubious government -- such as protecting oil supplies.  Motive, however, is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove a crime, and in any case, I can't think of any political leader who has or ever has had entirely pure motivations (however one may define pure -- and that must be defined in accordance with the standards at the time of the action, not those of some future date, never mind those of some other culture).

Yes, perhaps he did not disclose all of the details to the general public or to Parliament.  This is, however, the real world, not the Oxford University Debating Society or something like that, and unless one is a complete idiot one does not disclose all of the information or details surrounding actions in national and international affairs, either intentionally or, if your first name is Hillary, unintentionally(?).

So, no.  Such a prosecution could only satisfy the desire for vengeance on the part of the disgruntled, and accomplish no good, even should it succeed.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Yes, the information was misleading, perhaps, but that is not Mr. Blair's fault (one could argue, I suppose, that to the extent that British and US intelligence was faulty it might be said to be the leaders' fault, but that is a real stretch).

It doesn't appear to be that way at all. I've not read Chilcot (for obvious reasons, lack of time being the main one) so am relying on summaries. Much of the intelligence was accurate (if we exclude, for example, the Niger uranium [which is from a discredited source / a forgery]) - but he wilfully misinterpreted it. If one thing was obvious (and many said it was at the time), it is that the decision to go to war was the predetermined outcome, and facts were massaged, even ignored, in order to facilitate that act. By the time he had presented it to the public the information certainly was wildly misleading - but it had already been deliberately mutated from what the intelligence agencies initially had.

[forte88]

I think we ought to look into why a seemingly intelligent idealist would feel compelled to join fuckwit Bush in a senseless war. He started off well, for example he was the guy that felt the patenting by Bio-tech companies of the human genome was unjust and ought to be free.
Like Monsanto and the mining of space resources they were patenting nature, i.e. using a legal construct to make something that ought to belong to all of us into something that was owned and sold for profit.
So judging by his track-record before the Iraq war I'd say he was a decent individual and somehow he still gives that impression.
I just wonder if he was browbeaten into it. Maybe he was just like the soldier who was just doing what his massr told him to do.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

seemingly intelligent idealist

Blair is anything but that. He is a consummate actor, I will give him that.

[ahinton]

Crimes, please, not drimes.

In all honesty, I don't know. It's just too easy to blast off and say that this should happen and the number of lives lost during the conflict and the havoc with which that now very sad country has been left to contend since UK involvement ended might well tempt one to believe that this should indeed happen. However, insufficient is known of all relevant facts.

If anything, perhaps he should stand trial on a charge of gross incompetence and dishonesty in Prime Ministerial office and it the case against him for this is prepared properly those facts might emerge, in which case we'd be in a better position to judge whether he should then go on to be tried for war crimes, a possibility that i would certainly be loath to discount.

Whoever's fault the WMD and other intelligence shortcomings might have been, it remains arguable that, given the lack of hard evidence that Saddam (who did indeed need to be removed, but not by US and UK) posed a material, identifiable and provable threat to UK, there was no need for UK involvement and, as it turned out, that involvement was in the capacity of a kind of puppet to Bush's US.

Even if the WMD threat were believed (albeit falsely), everywhere in the world would have been at risk, not just UK. UK and US should have waited until Blix completed his investigations and found, as he eventually did anyway, there there were no such WMDs; you don't go to war on a speculation.

So, yes, he should certainly go on trial, but not for war crimes in the first instance; doing that might undermine the possibility that he did indeed commit them and ruin any case that there might otherwise have been. I would therefore propse a test trial on other grounds - a sprat to catch a mackerel, as they say in UK.

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

I don't care if he was misled or received false information. We're not talking about some knocked up chick or alimony, we're talking about an invasion that led to deaths of thousands of innocent people. We're talking about an invasion that ruined an entire country.

what kind of a message are we sending if all we do is give ourselves a bloody slap on the wrist for invading countries. If there's crime for manslaughter, there should be a crime for this. Seriously we have no business talking about peace and human rights if we don't address the bullshit we pull in foreign lands.
Bush
Blair
Cheney
etc
Not just invasions either, the overthrowing governments and funding dictators bs is getting out of hand too. For those of you who are anti migrant, remember that a large portions of economic migrants come afghanistan, libya, iraq, and iran. You no like exoduses from foreign lands? Stop supporting or making excuses up for the bastards that are responsible for these events.
(looking at u forte)

Seriously pisses me off that countries directly responsible for the migration crisis refuse to own up to their mistakes. US, Britain, France and some minor lapdogs like Italy or Poland don't think twice about supporting interventions or whatnot in the middle east, but then they are the loudest to cry about middle eastern immigration. meanwhile the countries (Germany, Sweden) that voted against these acts are the ones that suffer the most.
The millions of refugees should go to Britain, France, and the USA. Maybe if we start to take responsibility for our own actions we'll think twice about being assholes.

[ahinton]

I don't care if he was misled or received false information. We're not talking about some knocked up chick or alimony, we're talking about an invasion that led to deaths of thousands of innocent people. We're talking about an invasion that ruined an entire country.

what kind of a message are we sending if all we do is give ourselves a bloody slap on the wrist for invading countries. If there's crime for manslaughter, there should be a crime for this. Seriously we have no business talking about peace and human rights if we don't address the bullshit we pull in foreign lands.
Bush
Blair
Cheney
etc
Not just invasions either, the overthrowing governments and funding dictators bs is getting out of hand too. For those of you who are anti migrant, remember that a large portions of economic migrants come afghanistan, libya, iraq, and iran. You no like exoduses from foreign lands? Stop supporting or making excuses up for the bastards that are responsible for these events.
(looking at u forte)

Seriously pisses me off that countries directly responsible for the migration crisis refuse to own up to their mistakes. US, Britain, France and some minor lapdogs like Italy or Poland don't think twice about supporting interventions or whatnot in the middle east, but then they are the loudest to cry about middle eastern immigration. meanwhile the countries (Germany, Sweden) that voted against these acts are the ones that suffer the most.
The millions of refugees should go to Britain, France, and the USA. Maybe if we start to take responsibility for our own actions we'll think twice about being assholes.

I don't disagree in principle with most of that. What concerns me, however (not least because Blair was a lawyer and is married to another one, so he knows the legal ropes better than most) is that, if he is indeed to face justice, his trial/s must be conducted in the most effective manner in order properly to expose the flaws in his conduct when UK Prime Minister before going on to retry him, if appropriat and feasible, for war crimes if an initial trial for misfeasance in office or whatever else finds against him.

Best,

Alistair

[indianajo]

I might point out trying the previous national leader for crimes while in office, after they cede power, leads to permanent dictatorships with the leader never ceding power.  Cuba and Zimbabwe are two obvious examples of this behavoir.  
In our country we give the former leader a nice retirement package and he goes off to play with his library, which has been enough incentive to keep tyrants out of permanent office so far.  Except for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who really didn't have his way about things, the Republicans plus Dixiecrats of Congress were quite a barrier to his domestic initiatives.
Look what happend with Henry VIII.  Abbeys demolished, artwork melted down, church properties confisgated and given to politcal supporters of the monarchy, 5 innocent wives executed for the monarch's infertility,  assassination plots being paid for by the Pope, what a mess.  Better Parlement limited the absolute powers when Charles went off the rails.  
I can't believe nobody in UK or the news media will talk about the REAL cause of Iraq war II.  
There were press rumors and probably some evidence, that Saddam Hussein paid to assassinate George H Bush in Pakistan after he was out of office. There was an actual incident on a Pakistani street, see the papers.   If Hussein was  truly the paymaster of that event, it would in my opinion been enough reason go to war to remove Hussein. Not to mention the use of nerve gas on the Kurds incident.  I seriously doubt there was enough evidence to go to court on this, but maybe enough to act.
Nobody will talk about it, and Chilcott spent zero pounds investigating this rumor.  Bush and Blair certainly won't talk about it, but George W.  Bush obviously had some personal interest in the matter.  20 years later and everybody is still bathering endlessly about the weapons of mass destruction that weren't there.  If any fault should be assigned, it sounds as if (from the Guardian report) that the MI6 director that took unanalyzed intelligence rumors to Blair is at fault.  

[ahinton]

I might point out trying the previous national leader for crimes while in office, after they cede power, leads to permanent dictatorships with the leader never ceding power.  Cuba and Zimbabwe are two obvious examples of this behavoir.

But UK is hardly synonymous with Cuba or Zimbabwe! If Blair is to be tried for misfeasance and incompetence  during the time that he held Prime Ministerial office, that would almost certainly be conducted in UK; if he is eventually tried for war crimes, that would be in the International Court in den Haag, Netherlands. Either way, it would make no difference of the kind that you mention.

I can't believe nobody in UK or the news media will talk about the REAL cause of Iraq war II.  
There were press rumors and probably some evidence, that Saddam Hussein paid to assassinate George H Bush in Pakistan after he was out of office. There was an actual incident on a Pakistani street, see the papers.   If Hussein was  truly the paymaster of that event, it would in my opinion been enough reason go to war to remove Hussein. Not to mention the use of nerve gas on the Kurds incident.  I seriously doubt there was enough evidence to go to court on this, but maybe enough to act.

The evidence would have to be available and bombproof in order to justify Blair's actions in respect of the Iraq war as a defence for them.

Nobody will talk about it, and Chilcott spent zero pounds investigating this rumor.

No one needs initially to talk about it; they need first to produce reliable, comprehensive and incontrovertible evidence of it, otherwise it would be a non-starter. Chilcot didn't investigate it because that was no more prt of his brief than was investigating the legality or otherwise of that war.

 Bush and Blair certainly won't talk about it, but George W.  Bush obviously had some personal interest in the matter.  20 years later and everybody is still bathering endlessly about the weapons of mass destruction that weren't there.  If any fault should be assigned, it sounds as if (from the Guardian report) that the MI6 director that took unanalyzed intelligence rumors to Blair is at fault.

I do not doubt for one mpoment that whatever fault might be attributable to Blair would not be exclusive to him.

Best,

Alistair

[indianajo]

But UK is hardly synonymous with Cuba or Zimbabwe! If Blair is to be tried for misfeasance and incompetence  during the time that he held Prime Ministerial office, that would almost certainly be conducted in UK; if he is eventually tried for war crimes, that would be in the International Court in den Haag, Netherlands. Either way, it would make no difference of the kind that you mention.

The UK was exactly synonymous with current Cuba or Zimbabwe under Oliver Cromwell.  Big civil war, thousands of executions, man was in office until he died and tried to make the office inheritable by his son, who fortunately didn't want it.  Military dictatorship if I ever heard of one.  OC had some good ideas, but not having to bounce them off Parlement meant he acted on all his bad ones, too.  Look at the mess his crew made in Ireland, supressing the Catholics to the death and stealing all sorts of property for the "righteous" to set up little feifs.  It took 500 years to calm the results of that disaster and It may not be over yet. 

[ahinton]

The UK was exactly synonymous with current Cuba or Zimbabwe under Oliver Cromwell.  Big civil war, thousands of executions, man was in office until he died and tried to make the office inheritable by his son, who fortunately didn't want it.  Military dictatorship if I ever heard of one.  OC had some good ideas, but not having to bounce them off Parlement meant he acted on all his bad ones, too.  Look at the mess his crew made in Ireland, supressing the Catholics to the death and stealing all sorts of property for the "righteous" to set up little feifs.  It took 500 years to calm the results of that disaster and It may not be over yet.

Oliver Cromwell? Are you serious? He died almost 360 years ago and I don't think it entirely unreasonable to point out that a few things on the political landscape of most part of the globe have undergone a change or three since then! Since this is primarily a music forum, perhaps I should quote from Benjamin Britten's cabaret song the line "Oliver Cromwell is buried and dead, hey, ho, buried and dead".

We're discussing Mr Blair's involvement in the Iraq war which commenced just 13 years ago, not in the mid-17th century!

We at last have the Chilcot report which, whilst unequivocally critical of several aspects of Mr Blair's conduct in respect of that war, did not include pronouncements as the the legality or otherwise of that war beause that was outside his brief; indeed, it might not be unreasonable to suggest that, should there be any question of Mr Blair being tried for war crimes, a further report be commissioned that does include a remit to consider whether or not the war into which he took UK was or was not legal and, in my view, it was a great pity that such a brief was excluded from the Chilcot enquiry (although, had it been included, we might have had to wait another two years or more for its publication).

It was also outside Chilcot's brief to consider whether Mr Blair acted legally and constitutionally (in respect of his decisions about Iraq when Prime Minister) in terms of his contract - i.e. whether or not he was guilty at that time of failures and shortcomings in specific reference to his Prime Ministerial duties and responsibilities, which is a similar but not identical issue.

This is why I believe that, should any legal action against Mr Blair be contemplated, it should commence in the UK Courts and concentrate specifically in the first instance on whether he acted against resonable and contractual expectations of a UK Prime Minister and, if found that he had, the war crimes issue might then come to have more traction.

Best,

Alistair

[iansinclair]

Well said, Indianajo!  Well said indeed!

To which I might only add: I cannot think of a national leader in recent memory (or even not so recent) who actually did anything who could not be accused, under the logic of those attacking Mr. Blair, of some kind of malfeasance.

Indianjo mentions Oliver Cromwell.  To be sure.  Lord North managed to lose the 13 colonies in a rather bloody little war.  Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone presided over some lamentable occurrences in various colonies and at home.  Several people fumbled the ball in the runup to World War I.  Sir Neville Chamberlain didn't do so well at Munich.  Mr. Churchill managed to win a war, but played rather fast and loose with facts from time to time.  And so on.  On the other side of the pond?  FDR?  He wanted to be president for life -- and succeeded; it took a Constitutional amendment to keep if from happening again, and he had a rather casual attitude towards inconvenient truths.  Truman?  They still haven't signed a peace treaty on the Korean peninsula.  LBJ?  Oh give me a break.  He record makes that of the Bushes look like country vicars (Vietnam, anyone?).  Mr. Obama?  He gets the Nobel Peace Prize and the world has been enmeshed in war and terrorism ever since, which he has done nothing to stop or control except wring his hands.

If I had more time I could also go through various leaders of European countries... and Asian ones...

And, of course, one could also go down to the local level.  Right down to your own village.

Folks wonder why it is difficult to get really good people to stand for public office.  Really?  When one can be reasonably sure that one will be slandered and libeled while in office?  When one can be reasonably sure that one will be vilified after leaving office?  When one can be reasonably sure that one's friends and relations, to the seventh generation, will be dragged through the mud?

I could go on, but I won't.  End of rant.  No.  One more thought: keep in mind that our countries are, supposedly, democracies.  That means "of the people".  That means you and me.  That means that we all, each and every single one of us, shares the blame and the guilt for what goes wrong, just as we share the praise and the glory for what goes right.  

"'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone' and they went away, and He was left alone with the woman".

[forte88]

I think most people are missing the point. Qui bono?
Whose wars are we fighting?
Is it in the West's interest to be fighting there?
Politicians are just puppets, representatives not of the people but of the power of the few.
It's like getting rid of Nixon thinking that will solve the problem. Does anyone really the think the president of the US or pm of Britain holds any real power




Some images that tell of a very different story. Both desert snakes have their motives and both have their advantages.
Like superpowers in the past the frontmen for the real power are on the take from both sides.
On the one hand the international bankers who create money out of thin air and get Americans to pay billions a year to Israel so they can bomb Palestinians with amongst other things white phosphor. Their goal judging by the wars fought(none in OUR interest btw) the biblical Greater Israel.
Then the other desert snake bribing the governments, media and the like: the Saudi Wahhabi, who are the most fundamentalist(save usury) in the Islamic world and who have got trillions to spend if needs be. They obviously hated the more Westernised dictators like those in Libya, Syria and Iraq and now probably support groups like ISIS.

The main problem judging by the responses here is that most people are sheepl that follow whatever the media tells them to, never dig a little deeper.

We're always told that Israel and the Arab world hate each other, but judging by what's actually going on I'd say on a higher up level they're allies.
Like the Jews used Christianity to destroy the Roman Empire and then when they saw it didn't have the deleterious effect they'd hoped for invented another brand of Judaism, namely Islam to try again.
This time they invented a new religion called the Holocaust, again to make us feel sinful and to stifle freedom of speech. Now they could get away with mass immigration without a fight, because if you spoke out against it you were branded a racist or a nazi and ostracised like Enoch Powell(a Classical scholar) and Jan Maat in Holland(a sociologist).
History repeats....

But whereas in the past there was unity and people had an identity now there's so much diversity so much divide and rule that it's hard to make a stand.

Not just Tony Blair should be branded a traitor, just about every politician in Parliament, the people that run the media, the people in government that develop the education programmes etc.

[ahinton]

I think most people are missing the point. Qui bono?
Whose wars are we fighting?
Is it in the West's interest to be fighting there?

Not as far as I am concerned, no. Had there been sufficient incontrovertible evidence of a genuine threat to UK from Saddam's régime, tht would have been a different matter - but there wasn't; all that there appeared to have been was the WMD thing which, had Blix been able to complete his investigative work, would have revealed beyond doubt that there were not such things and so the absence of such a tghreat would have become clear.

Does anyone really the think the president of the US or pm of Britain holds any real power

Yes - and the evidence that they each do indeed have some is amply evidence from the chaos that each created in Iraq; without suifficient power, that would not have been possible.

The main problem judging by the responses here is that most people are sheepl that follow whatever the media tells them to, never dig a little deeper.

And your recommended alternative for each individual to do is what, exactly?

Not just Tony Blair should be branded a traitor, just about every politician in Parliament, the people that run the media, the people in government that develop the education programmes etc.

Many politicians in Parliament and media moguls and the rest were not in the positions that they are today when Mr Blair sent troops into Iraq more than 13 years ago but, in any case, if all such people were not only to be branded as traitors but also tried in Court as such, there almost certainly would be insufficient lawyers and Court space and time to do it, let alone people willing to do it - and you'd have no Parliament or media left, so by what means would the business of government and communication be expected to continue?

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

I'm all for a clean sweep. If the system is rotten to its core and isn't serving the public it's no sacrifice to replace it.
How can a country be democratic?How can there be such a thing as 'free' press? How can there be a representative government when money power buys power and influence?

I think most people are missing the point. Qui bono?
Whose wars are we fighting?
Is it in the West's interest to be fighting there?
Not as far as I am concerned, no. Had there been sufficient incontrovertible evidence of a genuine threat to UK from Saddam's régime, tht would have been a different matter - but there wasn't; all that there appeared to have been was the WMD thing which, had Blix been able to complete his investigative work, would have revealed beyond doubt that there were not such things and so the absence of such a tghreat would have become clear.

Again, is it in Americas interest to run up trillions in debt when they can barely afford pensions and social security. The richest country in the world using American tax payers and debt enslaving future generations.
And Britain blindly following whatever America does. The nation that betrayed it and then sold the lie that the richest country in the British Empire, the most free, shouldn't have to pay for the wars fought against the French for their benefit, fought British tyranny.
If they'd been true citizens they would have brought the war to Britain.
And what could be a better combination the treacherous hypocritical US and the 'chosen people' working together?

If you've missed the images I put up I advise you to look at it again and see if it makes sense this time

[ahinton]

I'm all for a clean sweep. If the system is rotten to its core and isn't serving the public it's no sacrifice to replace it.

But by "the system" can you really exempt the legal profession, judiciary, Courts? You'd have to if trying all the culprits in the hope of bringing them to what you might deem to be justice were ever to happen; it won't and can't do itself!

How can a country be democratic?How can there be such a thing as 'free' press? How can there be a representative government when money power buys power and influence?

You probably can't, but then I don't see that being changed unless money itself is dispensed with, because that kind of thing doesn't only happen on a vast scale but on every conceivable scale.

Again, is it in Americas interest to run up trillions in debt when they can barely afford pensions and social security. The richest country in the world using American tax payers and debt enslaving future generations.

And Britain blindly following whatever America does. The nation that betrayed it and then sold the lie that the richest country in the British Empire, the most free, shouldn't have to pay for the wars fought against the French for their benefit, fought British tyranny.

Is in in any nation's interest to run up vast debts? Presumably not, but which ones don't? Up to a point, almost every one of them's in hock to almost every other one!

If you've missed the images I put up I advise you to look at it again and see if it makes sense this time

I fear that not a great deal of what you put up makes much sense to me - and considering it a second time does little to change that.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

How can a country be democratic?How can there be such a thing as 'free' press? How can there be a representative government when money power buys power and influence?

You probably can't, but then I don't see that being changed unless money itself is dispensed with, because that kind of thing doesn't only happen on a vast scale but on every conceivable scale.

That's exactly what I propose, wasn't it a Rothschild that said :"Let me control the money and I care not who writes the laws?"

On a more philosophical level; What is humanity's competitive advantage compared to other animals? Information!
I see humanity as a giant super organism, a giant brain that's being thwarted by money.
Imagine a brain that could only pass on to other cells if these cells paid money first.

And it's exactly that. Just because you've got shitty taste in music doesn't mean that probably even you can recognise that Bach is infinitely more superior to Brahms or Schoenberg or Mahler or any of these degenerate late 19th century, beginning of the 20th century composers.
And Bach is even superior to Mozart or Haydn.

Fact is we're devolving despite the lies told that we're getting smarter. Just looking at music ought to be enough to know that on the basis of the individual our neo cortex capacity is declining. We see it in language as well. And it could even be partly due to diversity that our language is devolving and hence our music but more likely it's part of the desert rats' strategy.

First they introduced Christianity that made women into chattel. The consequence of this unnaturalness( the curbing of women's inherent sexuality; two holes insatiables) was that women could no longer choose what they were attracted to, this lead to the species as a whole degenerating.
Then through Protestantism came Capitalism and this was religion 2.0 the new and improved mode of enslavement(obviously Jews had a leg up since they were always allowed to do that) Christianity only allowed it in the Renaissance but by then the Jews already had a distinct advantage, not just allowing usury, but in a real sense the first multi-national( 'a nation within nations)
Now the women had become whores and once again couldn't choose .

Fastforward to today with feminism and political correctness( a spin off of the Holocaust religion)
yet again undermining our natural instincts.

Since the end of Bretton Woods they can even create money out of thin air. What can be easier than that to enslave people?

[ahinton]

That's exactly what I propose, wasn't it a Rothschild that said :"Let me control the money and I care not who writes the laws?"

On a more philosophical level; What is humanity's competitive advantage compared to other animals? Information!
I see humanity as a giant super organism, a giant brain that's being thwarted by money.
Imagine a brain that could only pass on to other cells if these cells paid money first.

And it's exactly that. Just because you've got shitty taste in music doesn't mean that probably even you can recognise that Bach is infinitely more superior to Brahms or Schoenberg or Mahler or any of these degenerate late 19th century, beginning of the 20th century composers.
And Bach is even superior to Mozart or Haydn.

Fact is we're devolving despite the lies told that we're getting smarter. Just looking at music ought to be enough to know that on the basis of the individual our neo cortex capacity is declining. We see it in language as well. And it could even be partly due to diversity that our language is devolving and hence our music but more likely it's part of the desert rats' strategy.

First they introduced Christianity that made women into chattel. The consequence of this unnaturalness( the curbing of women's inherent sexuality; two holes insatiables) was that women could no longer choose what they were attracted to, this lead to the species as a whole degenerating.
Then through Protestantism came Capitalism and this was religion 2.0 the new and improved mode of enslavement(obviously Jews had a leg up since they were always allowed to do that) Christianity only allowed it in the Renaissance but by then the Jews already had a distinct advantage, not just allowing usury, but in a real sense the first multi-national( 'a nation within nations)
Now the women had become whores and once again couldn't choose .

Fastforward to today with feminism and political correctness( a spin off of the Holocaust religion)
yet again undermining our natural instincts.

Since the end of Bretton Woods they can even create money out of thin air. What can be easier than that to enslave people?

Should Blair stand trial for war crimes?

That's the question posed by the OP.

What feminism, capitalism, Schönberg and other Jews, women's sexuality, the Holocaust, Christianity, the Renaissance or Bretton Woods have to do with that question is up to members here to figure out or not...

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

what

[forte88]

What feminism, capitalism, Schönberg and other Jews, women's sexuality, the Holocaust, Christianity, the Renaissance or Bretton Woods have to do with that question is up to members here to figure out or not...

Look you stupid *** cunt don't feign ignorance.
If you'd even read what I wrote it would be perfectly obvious. I was stating the actual factors behind the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last bit was in reply to your own question.

[gep]

Look you stupid *** cunt don't feign ignorance.
If you'd even read what I wrote it would be perfectly obvious. I was stating the actual factors behind the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last bit was in reply to your own question.

With that kind of (mental) blood pressure you're not going to get very old... Good Lord, I've skimmed over some of your messages (rearranging things into what you probably meant to write); I'm reminded of those YouTubers going on about 'chemtrails' and 'Niburu' and suchlike.

I see humanity as a giant super organism, a giant brain that's being thwarted by money.

If it were a brain, it could choose to be thwarted by money.... If I were to compare the whole of humanity, in general greatest mean, with something biological, I'd trun over the nearest cowpat and see what goes on under it. Something very busy, fascinating, intricate, in part very usuful, but also something having a bit of a whiff over it...

Imagine a brain that could only pass on to other cells

Considering that a brain consist of very many billions of cells, that seems somewhat unlikely.

Jan Maat in Holland(a sociologist).

You might want to check your information (although your messages in general does not give much hope on that...), for the man was not Jan Maat, but Hans Janmaat. Who studied aeronautics, then run a small carpentry factory, and then taught sociology at a Roman Catholic school. Other than that, your information is correct.

From what you ramble, I guess that you 1) feel you have too little money, 2) others have more than you grant them and 3) you would trump Trump as rabid capitalist if you got enough money.

I wonder if you have many friends. Meaning people you would recognise after they have taken their white pointy hats off...

I'm off to listen to some Mahler...

all best,
gep

[forte88]

With that kind of (mental) blood pressure you're not going to get very old... Good Lord, I've skimmed over some of your messages (rearranging things into what you probably meant to write); I'm reminded of those YouTubers going on about 'chemtrails' and 'Niburu' and suchlike.

You obviously don't know anything about history and trying to discredit something you know nothing about just makes YOU look like a fool.

Jan Maat in Holland(a sociologist).
You might want to check your information (although your messages in general does not give much hope on that...), for the man was not Jan Maat, but Hans Janmaat. Who studied aeronautics, then run a small carpentry factory, and then taught sociology at a Roman Catholic school. Other than that, your information is correct.

I didn't know I was communicating with Jan Maat experts, for what it's worth it was Maatschappijleer but obviously this isn't about content but just harping on about things that have zero relevance

From what you ramble, I guess that you 1) feel you have too little money, 2) others have more than you grant them and 3) you would trump Trump as rabid capitalist if you got enough money.

Ad hominem, typical tactic of the witless when they can't use arguments to debunk they just try and slander the person who dares go contrary to 'the party line'

I wonder if you have many friends. Meaning people you would recognise after they have taken their white pointy hats off...

I'm off to listen to some Mahler...

all best,
gep

Don't you mean ahinton? Coz only you could be this dense

[ahinton]

Look you stupid *** cunt don't feign ignorance.
If you'd even read what I wrote it would be perfectly obvious. I was stating the actual factors behind the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last bit was in reply to your own question.

I will ignore your opening compliment.

If I had not read what you'd written I would have been unable to reply to it. I did, however.

The list that I provided, quoted from your post - "feminism, capitalism, Schönberg and other Jews, women's sexuality, the Holocaust, Christianity, the Renaissance and Bretton Woods" - have no conceivable connection with the OP, which is why I said as much.

If you have nothing useful to discuss about the subject of this thread, you would be wise to exercise what the Americans call your "right to remain silent"; I suspect that members here would welcome that.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You obviously don't know anything about history and trying to discredit something you know nothing about just makes YOU look like a fool

And you DO know something about history? And you can actually make that relevant to the discussion? ANd of which colour of cheese is the moon made?

I didn't know I was communicating with Jan Maat experts

There would appear to be quite a lot that you don't know...

obviously this isn't about content but just harping on about things that have zero relevance

Well, having littered this discussion with enough such things to keep anyone going for a long time, I guess that you of all people should know about "things that have zero relevance", having indulged yourself in expressing more than anyone's fair share thereof.

Ad hominem, typical tactic of the witless when they can't use arguments to debunk they just try and slander the person who dares go contrary to 'the party line'

Now what would you know about "ad hominem"? Presumably only what you display in Reply #21 on: Today at 06:52:21 PM in this thread...

If yours is the "party line", I can only hope that none of us here would ever be invited to the party...

Your post has been reported.

[forte88]

If I had not read what you'd written I would have been unable to reply to it. I did, however.

Then you're a bigger fool than I thought

[ahinton]

Then you're a bigger fool than I thought

You think? News to most of us here, I imagine! That said, I can accept that it might be thought foolish for anyone concerned to use his/her time profitably to have "read what you'd written"...

[forte88]

Then you're a bigger fool than I thought
You think? News to most of us here, I imagine! That said, I can accept that it might be thought foolish for anyone concerned to use his/her time profitably to have "read what you'd written"...

I can understand that reading is perhaps a little too difficult for someone like yourself, that's why I added the pictures as they say more than a thousand words.
And just to reiterate before my words are drowned out by your mental diarrhoea; The topic is: 'should Blair stand trial for war crimes'.
If you know a little about the history of the region you'd know it's not as simple as letting one of their flunkies stand trial for war crimes. Because in this corrupt system for every Tony Blair there are a million other career politicians willing to sell out, willing to destroy a country and the people that voted for them(the public interest) to benefit themselves and the desert snakes financially supporting them

[Bob]

I haven't read the whole post and don't know the situation (last I've got is Brexit and he resigned) but... It would be interesting if public figures were held up (basically punished) when they purposely misled the public.  "Purposely" would be the key point though, to prove that.  When it's more obvious that they've lied or they do something, influence something, with shoddy evidence to support their argument... That has more of a negative effect on the public when things go wrong.  Mistakes?  Fine.  Purposely doing something that's negative, esp. if it's more for personal gain...?  I'm thinking maybe we should err on the side of caution and nail someone for screwing over the public in general.

[ahinton]

I added the pictures as they say more than a thousand words

So why did you accompany them with a thousand words?

The topic is: 'should Blair stand trial for war crimes'.

Yes - and I have had to remind you of that.

If you know a little about the history of the region you'd know it's not as simple as letting one of their flunkies stand trial for war crimes. Because in this corrupt system for every Tony Blair there are a million other career politicians willing to sell out, willing to destroy a country and the people that voted for them(the public interest) to benefit themselves and the desert snakes financially supporting them

But I have already clarified that Blair is not, in my view, guilty alone; in this I agree with you. However, taking every media mogul and politician to Court is hardly going to achieve anything useful, is it?!

Best,

Alistair

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I don't care if he was misled or received false information. We're not talking about some knocked up chick or alimony, we're talking about an invasion that led to deaths of thousands of innocent people. We're talking about an invasion that ruined an entire country.

what kind of a message are we sending if all we do is give ourselves a bloody slap on the wrist for invading countries. If there's crime for manslaughter, there should be a crime for this. Seriously we have no business talking about peace and human rights if we don't address the bullshit we pull in foreign lands.
Bush
Blair
Cheney
etc
Not just invasions either, the overthrowing governments and funding dictators bs is getting out of hand too. For those of you who are anti migrant, remember that a large portions of economic migrants come afghanistan, libya, iraq, and iran. You no like exoduses from foreign lands? Stop supporting or making excuses up for the bastards that are responsible for these events.
(looking at u forte)

Seriously pisses me off that countries directly responsible for the migration crisis refuse to own up to their mistakes. US, Britain, France and some minor lapdogs like Italy or Poland don't think twice about supporting interventions or whatnot in the middle east, but then they are the loudest to cry about middle eastern immigration. meanwhile the countries (Germany, Sweden) that voted against these acts are the ones that suffer the most.
The millions of refugees should go to Britain, France, and the USA. Maybe if we start to take responsibility for our own actions we'll think twice about being assholes.

+100000

[ahinton]

I haven't read the whole post and don't know the situation (last I've got is Brexit and he resigned) but... It would be interesting if public figures were held up (basically punished) when they purposely misled the public.  "Purposely" would be the key point though, to prove that.  When it's more obvious that they've lied or they do something, influence something, with shoddy evidence to support their argument... That has more of a negative effect on the public when things go wrong.  Mistakes?  Fine.  Purposely doing something that's negative, esp. if it's more for personal gain...?  I'm thinking maybe we should err on the side of caution and nail someone for screwing over the public in general.

There is a Court case being prepared against those who ran the Leave campaign in the UK EU referendum for just that - wilfully misleading the public while in office. What might come of it I do not, of course, know (and yes, I know that this sounds like I've posted in on the wong thread, but your mention of this kind of thing brought it to mind). As to personal gain, quite what Tony Blair and his minions thought that they might stand to gain from taking UK to war in Iraq is entirely unclear, but that's hardly the point. Thee's more debate to be had on this and we'll just have to wait and see what might happen.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

There is a Court case being prepared against those who ran the Leave campaign in the UK EU referendum for just that - wilfully misleading the public while in office. What might come of it I do not, of course, know (and yes, I know that this sounds like I've posted in on the wong thread, but your mention of this kind of thing brought it to mind).

And if Remain had won, there might well have been a Court case against them for wilfully misleading the public whilst in office.

I can predict what will come of it.

BUGGER ALL.

Thal

[forte88]

I added the pictures as they say more than a thousand words
So why did you accompany them with a thousand words?

For the people that actually know how to read...

I didn't know I was communicating with Jan Maat experts

There would appear to be quite a lot that you don't know...

Any fool can look up things on Google, that doesn't make you knowledgable, you probably wouldn't have even known who he was had I not mentioned him. And sure, you could probably even look up the exact address where the LMC is in Rijswijk and I'm sure you'd probably even convince the fools on PS that this makes you more knowledgable than someone who doesn't need Google to find it

[ahinton]

And if Remain had won, there might well have been a Court case against them for wilfully misleading the public whilst in office.

Possibly, although as Leave did far more of that the chances that such a case would be upheld in Court would be considerably smaller.

I can predict what will come of it.

BUGGER ALL.

Never predict anything. In any event, there are four other cases pending that are about other aspects of the issue besides misinformation, as well as the petition, so that's quite a few other bites at the cherry.

Even if none of them work out, the chances that the government will be able successfully to conduct all of the necessary negotiations over the next few years looks slim indeed; on nation against 27 doesn't seem like a great start...

But all that's for the Brexit thread.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

For the people that actually know how to read...

And what makes you assume that anyone who posts here (and can therefore write) might be unable to read? That said, the reason that I asked you that question was that, as you had stated that a picture says more than a thousand words, why bother to write a thousand words as well as providing a picture?

You really do undermine your credibility at almost every turn.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

What can I say, I like writing, if you don't like reading(or don't know how) I've added the pictures...besides you didn't even notice that my writing wasn't just about immigration/invasion so that only proves my point

[ahinton]

What can I say, I like writing

I think that some of us here have probably noticed that already without being prompted by your admission; nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes...

if you don't like reading (or don't know how)

Were either of those to be the case, I would have been unable to respond the the points that you have made on the occasions when you have made any.

you didn't even notice that my writing wasn't just about immigration/invasion

I have not suggested that it was.

so that only proves my point

Once again, as in the Brexit thread, you haven't made one so you cannot prove one.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

so that only proves my point
Once again, as in the Brexit thread, you haven't made one so you cannot prove one.

Talk about trolling...anyone can read what I wrote and then they'll see how all your replies are non nonsensical....Just stating something doesn't make it true, just the usual strategy for the (criminally) dense

[ahinton]

Talk about trolling

One doesn't need to troll in order to observe that, as you had not made a point in this instance, there was none to prove; but if you want to "talk about trolling", please go ahead - be my guest - that's your prerogative. In the meantime, I will continue to read intelligent posts pertinent to the issues under discussion from those who provide them.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Possibly, although as Leave did far more of that the chances that such a case would be upheld in Court would be considerably smaller.

Counted them up have you??

This is really a daft thing to come up with.

Thal

[ahinton]

Counted them up have you??

I've no more done that than you've counted numbers of words in posts.

It is nevertheless as well known, for example, that there was an imbalance in provision of misleading information between the two sides in the referendum as it is that both sides were guilty of it, the ex-PM himself being as heinous a speculation-monger as any; indeed, I would have absolutly no objection should a case be launched against the Remain side for similar actions on its part. That the sources of all of that misinformation were obviously larger in number than those who actually delivered them has its obvious parallel in the Blair case; the lies, scaremongering, speculations parading as fact, &c. that issued from his mouth didn't get there by dint of his own personal researches alone - intelligence (if one can call it that) was provided to him by many others and he bought into it hook, line and sinker. That said, where does the buck stop in such a case if not at 10 Downing Street?

Yes, Blair must be made to take due responsibility for what he did, but then so must those highly paid executives that provided him with the ammunition with which to put forward his arguments to the public, so they should not be exonerated and leave Blair as the only one to be tried. The subjects of any such trial would not be indentical, of course, because the misfeasance in office is different because the offices themselves (i.e. those of the security services and the PM) were different.

That said, however, I maintain that he should first be tried in UK for misfeasance in office including lying to UK citizens (rather as are those who ran the referendum Leave campaign) because out of such litigative action would likely emerge evidence that could point to whether he also merits being tried in the Netherlands as a war criminal.

Chilcot has certainly not whitewashed Blair and his rôle; it remains a great pity, however, that his remit did not extend to investigating and deliberating on whether or not the Iraq war was illegal and, unlikely though it seems to be now, I wish that government would launch a second separate inquiry into that.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

For pities sake.

Thal

[ahinton]

For pities sake.

I think that you mean "For pity's sake" but "For pities sake" what?

You and others believe that Blair should stand trial as a war criminal. I most certainly do not dispute that view, but I do think that the case against him as a war criminal might succeed a whole lot more easily if evidence from a successful misfeasance in public office case in UK has first been made available to that war crimes trial. If he's just dragged to a war crimes trial without that first stage having been reached, he might just get away with it (he's a lawyer, after all) - and how would that look were the case against him to collapse due to a combination of lack of evidence and his own and his team's manipulative legal skills on the other? I think that this would be worse than not taking him to Court at all.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Perhaps a Parliamentary petition could be inaugurated for Mr Blair to be tried for misfeasance and other shortcomings and possible illegalities while in office; it could not be for war crimes, for that would, I believe, fall outside outside Parliament's remit. What does anyone else here think about such an idea as a potential stepping stone to the subject of the thread?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I stopped thinking about 3 beers ago.

hic

[ahinton]

I stopped thinking about 3 beers ago.

I wan't just asking you! How many had you already had by that time, though? And were they litres or half litres?

hic

hæc

hoc

Best,

Alistair