FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Some reasons why I hate Tony Blair
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:06 pm    Post subject: Some reasons why I hate Tony Blair Reply with quote

Changed the title as everyone seems to think he can't be touched.

Reading a lot of this stuff though makes me wonder?

While you're thinking about that why not sign the Petition

To: President of the United Nations General Assembly and the UK Attorney General
BWCF - THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION

go here to sign - http://www.petitiononline.com/BWCF/petition.html

Fake faith and epic crimes

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes a worldwide movement that is 'challenging the once-sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives and retain an immunity from justice'. In Tony Blair's case, justice inches closer.


Above the words of non other than the mighty wordsmith - John Pilger

The good news for 2009, a seasonal wish list
18 Dec 2008
The current New Statesman offers a menu of good news to celebrate in 2009. John Pilger adds his own wish list.[/b]

January: Tony Blair is arrested at Heathrow Airport as he returns from yet another foreign speaking engagement (receipts since leaving office: £12m). He is flown to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes for his part in the illegal, unprovoked attack on a defenceless country, Iraq, justified by proven lies, and for the subsequent physical, social and cultural destruction of that country, causing the death of up to a million people. According to the Nuremberg Tribunal, this is the "paramount war crime". The prosecution tells Blair's defence team it will not accept a plea of "sincerely believing". Cherie Blair, a close collaborator who has compared her husband with Winston Churchill, is cautioned.
Nemo wrote:
Here is an insightful article about Blair's impending doom...

One can only fear for Tony Blair after last Thursday's European summit at Brussels.

The former Prime Minister had been intriguing and plotting to be appointed European president ever since he left No 10 more than two years ago.

There are several reasons why he so desperately wanted the job, but perhaps the main one concerns the immunity from prosecution seemingly enjoyed by all politicians in high office.
Haunted: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair at the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday

Haunted: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair at the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday

For the truth is that evidence continues to amass that, under the Blair premiership, the British state was responsible, at times, for some illegal actions which, on occasions, could be considered to be barbarism.

Blair is well aware that if he had become president of the European Council, it would have been very hard to bring him to account.

Indeed, he has watched over the years how Italian prosecutors have found it exceptionally hard to make his close friend and holiday companion, Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, face justice. As an ordinary citizen, however, it is a different matter.

There are three main areas where Blair may have committed illegal acts while in office.

The first concerns corruption, whereby businessmen or large corporations were able to influence government policy or gained other favours in exchange for donations to the Labour Party (for example, the change in policy over tobacco advertising secured by Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone after he gave £1million to the party).

But the most shocking aspect of the Blair administration - which is ironic, since it introduced the Human Rights Act - was its apparent indifference to human rights.

Fresh evidence is emerging every week of the alleged complicity of the British state in the torture of terrorist suspects, particularly after President Bush's White House took a much more brutal approach to such enemies of America after the bombing of the Twin Towers in 2001.

It is inconceivable that British intelligence agents would have been involved in the torture of terror suspects without explicit ministerial sanction.

The question is how much did Blair himself know - and the evidence he did is getting nearer his door all the time. A Human Rights Watch report into British complicity with torture is to be published on Tuesday and will add to the pressure.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1229692/PETER-OBORNE-He-looks-haunted-new-claims-torture-war-lies-hes-got-lot-haunted-by.html#ixzz0XUWHYIMJ

_____________________________________________________________

Interesting post Nemo... I happen to disagree with you - but I would love to be wrong which is why I stuck this here.(wouldn't it be great to see him in Pain without acting)


Main reason I think not is... the next time.

When Blair first became prime minister he could see John Major on the gravy train - Carlisle group etc sitting pretty - so he did everything they told him...

If Blair swings the next guy is gonna think twice about doing as they tell him - For that reason alone I don't think its gonna happen.


Last edited by GaryGo on Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:42 pm; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nemo



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 75
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately, GG, you are most likely right I probably should have put a ? at the end of my comment. However, Peter Oborne seems to have his ear to the political ground, if he is not an insider/elite himself (see link), so who knows? At worse it keeps the pressure on. Anyway, I expect a celebratory drink if I am right. Laughing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Oborne

_________________
The Truth? You can't handle the truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poor Tony Blair – Victim of an Illegal War in Iraq
August 27th, 2009 | Author: AT

Lord Hutton - Patron Saint of Apologists
Introduction
Part 1 of 3
The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Every applicable law unequivocally confirms this conclusion. There are no grey areas, no extenuating circumstances. Not according to the law.

When Tony Blair and George Bush decided to abandon the United Nations and launch their aggressive war against Iraq in March, 2003 they committed themselves to the most serious of all breaches of International law, “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”, as defined by the prosecutors at Nuremberg following the defeat of the Nazis.
Read the rest of this entry »


Posted in Corruption in Parliament, The Lies of Tony Blair, War Crimes in Iraq, War Law | Tags: illegal, iraq, lies, Resolution 1441, UN, United Nations, war, war crimes | 2 Comments »
Apologising for Blair
August 5th, 2009 | Author: AT

Blair and Bush at the Whitehouse, 2003
Despite the long since uncovered lies, the deceit and corruption, the intensifying violence of the state, the broken lives, shattered families, splintered society, breakdown of law and order, looting and collapse of the economy and disenfranchisement of the people under a nightmare parody of democracy, there remains a small body of loyalists who cover their eyes, block off their ears, hold their noses and speak sweetly and softly of the warmonger, the serial bomber, the self-obsessed man monster who is Tony Blair.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted in Corruption in Parliament, The Hutton Whitewash, The Lies of Tony Blair, War Crimes in Afghanistan, War Crimes in Iraq, War Crimes in Yugoslavia | Tags: butler, chilcot, corruption, hutton, inquiry, lies, Tony Blair, war crimes | 3 Comments »
Blair – The Making of a Monster
July 26th, 2009 | Author: AT
Tony Blair’s progression from a privileged, Tory leaning, guitar wielding attention seeker into Britain’s most corrupt politician and notorious war criminal is set out in a 2007 article by BBC political reporter Brian Wheeler.

Being a BBC piece, it smoothly glosses over or skips entirely many of Blair’s worst crimes but it is useful in collating much information about Blair’s early years.

The Tony Blair Story


Posted in Corruption in Parliament, The Lies of Tony Blair, War Crimes in Iraq | Tags: BBC, career, history, timeline, Tony Blair | No Comments »
Blair, "a pretty straight sort of a guy"?
July 24th, 2009 | Author: AT

Bernie Ecclestone
In assembling a list of Tony Blair’s top ten lies to the British people, Iraq and Saddam’s fabled weapons of mass destruction would surely top the charts. This was the lie that finally knocked Blair’s halo askew in the eyes of the public. Until that point many took him at his word when he claimed he was “a pretty straight sort of a guy”.
A liar would say that, wouldn’t he? A dishonest man is hardly going to admit his dishonesty, it’s simply not in his nature.

When thinking back to Bernie Ecclestone’s purchase of Tony Blair, New Labour’s first major scandal though certainly not the last, the sum of £1,000,000 probably jumps into your head. That was the amount Ecclestone donated to Blair’s party in secret in January, 1997 before Blair became the PM.
Read the rest of this entry »


Posted in Corruption in Parliament, The Lies of Tony Blair | Tags: corruption, ecclestone, lies, sleaze, Tony Blair | No Comments »
Unholy Alliance, Blair and Murdoch
July 23rd, 2009 | Author: AT

Rupert Murdoch
In his latest article in the New Statesmen John Pilger recalls some of the worst journalistic breaches of integrity by Rupert Murdoch’s “news” papers and remembers a young “aspiring war criminal” who, at an early stage of his political ascent, made it his business to court favour with the dangerously influential press baron.
The starry-eyed acolyte conveyed first-class to Australia was Tony Blair. He spoke of “the need for a new moral purpose in politics.” The rest is history and since that day millions of people around the planet have tasted Blair’s morality first-hand, many of them as they prayed whilst his bombs fell on their heads.
Read the rest of this entry »


Posted in The Lies of Tony Blair | Tags: Australia, lies, morality, Murdoch, New Statesman, Pilger, Tony Blair | No Comments »
The Blair Years – I See Dead People
July 22nd, 2009 | Author: AT
When Tony Blair swept into office in May, 1997 he was hailed by the media as a “new dawn” and the remedy to the eighteen years of a Conservative government irrevocably tarnished by corruption and scandal. “Things can only get better”, promised Blair and the crowds roared in approval and anticipation.

Two and a half thousand miles away in Iraq, a desperate population was struggling through another year of brutal economic sanctions, the toughest ever imposed by the United Nations. Iraq remained shattered following the first Gulf War during which American and British bombers had destroyed the entire national infrastructure including roads, bridges, factories, water treatment plants, power stations and any other facilities essential to a modern society. Raw sewage ran through the streets, electrical power fizzled randomly and could never be relied upon. In the hopelessly undermanned and overwhelmed hospitals doctors struggled with an explosion of diseases and fought vainly against a cancer rate that had increased twelvefold due to the war coalition’s use of uranium based weapons of mass destruction.
Read the rest of this entry »


Posted in Genocide, The Lies of Tony Blair, War Crimes in Iraq | Tags: Denis Halliday, iraq, Medialens, oil for food, sanctions, Tony Blair, UN, United Nations | 1 Comment »
Bomber Blair and Yugoslavia
July 21st, 2009 | Author: AT

U.S. President Bill Clinton greeting British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Tony Blair’s record of bombing nations to enforce his “values” and “liberate” his victims did not begin in Iraq in 2003.

Although he heartily enforced the murderous sanctions levied against Iraq following the end of the first Gulf War, sanctions that denied basic humanitarian supplies to innocent civilians and resulted in many thousands of deaths, his first large scale military aggression fell on Serbia, once a federal unit of Yugoslavia. With Blair’s full support NATO launched a 78 day blitz against Serbia in 1999.
Read the rest of this entry »


Posted in The Lies of Tony Blair, War Crimes in Yugoslavia | Tags: bombing, croatia, holocaust, NATO, serbia, Tony Blair, war crimes, yugoslavia | 1 Comment »
Guide to War Law
July 20th, 2009 | Author: AT
Make Wars History has done a great job putting together a Guide to War Law.

Subjects covered include:

Introduction
A Short History of War Law
The Laws Prohibiting War
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact]
The United Nations Charter
The Nuremburg Judgement
The Nuremburg Principles
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The International Criminal Court Act 2001
Implications
These are the foundation documents which, when compared to the actions of Tony Blair and his government since 2002, make a compelling case to suggest he should at least answer charges of committing war crimes and genocide.
Read the rest of this entry »


Posted in War Crimes in Afghanistan, War Crimes in Iraq, War Law | Tags: guide, make wars history, review, War Law | No Comments »
Chris Coverdale Sets the Scene
July 20th, 2009 | Author: AT
This is a lengthy talk by Chris Coverdale, the man who after many attempts finally forced the police to open an investigation into the criminal behaviour of the British government in agitating for and prosecuting an illegal war against Iraq. Of course the police managed to find reasons for dropping the investigation, no surprise there, but Chris persists in his campaign to hold our politicians accountable to the same laws they insist we are bound by.

In this video Chris describes the nature of the crimes committed by Blair and his government and explains the laws that potentially make us all accomplices should we continue to turn a blind eye to the great crimes that are conducted in our name.




GoogleVideo – Chris Coverdale

Posted in War Crimes in Afghanistan, War Crimes in Iraq | Tags: blair, chris coverdale, iraq, law, war crimes | No Comments »
TonyBlairWarCriminal.com
July 18th, 2009 | Author: AT
Welcome to Tony Blair War Criminal (TonyBlairWarCriminal.com), a blog and information resource that will, over time, list the many alleged crimes committed by the British ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair and, having set out the evidence, ask you to support the Blair War Crimes Foundation in it’s worthy and necessary aims.

We’re just starting out and have a lot of work to do to get as much information to you as possible in as short a time as possible. That’s because Tony Blair, on the back of playing a man of peace in the Middle East and a man of God on the home front, is seriously being considered as the new president of the undemocratic European Union.

Please check back regularly as the site will be updated frequently once we get started.

Thanks for reading and please visit the Blair War Crimes Foundation and lend your support if you believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law and all people, great and small, should be responsible and answerable for criminal activity.

Disclaimer: This blog is neither officially nor unofficially connected to or operating on behalf of the Blair War Crimes Foundation. We are voluntary and unsolicited advocates and supporters that wish to see this Foundation succeed in its aims.
http://www.tonyblairwarcriminal.com/

UK Iraq war inquiry: Will Tony Blair come under fire?

A UK Iraq war inquiry began Tuesday, amid allegations that British soldiers abused detainees during the war. The panel is to focus on how and why Britain went to war.

By Ben Quinn | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 24, 2009 edition
Print this Buzz up! Email and share Republish E-mail newsletters RSS

Correspondent Ben Quinn talks with Pat Murphy of CSMonitor.com about the start of an inquiry into British involvement in the Iraq War.
LONDON - Britain's official inquiry into the Iraq war got under way in London on Tuesday, but it's not likely to satisfy many of those who have long been awaiting it.

Critics of the war probably won't get what they most want from the government-appointed panel – a public drubbing of unpopular former Prime Minister Tony Blair for leading the nation to war in the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And supporters of the war are unlikely to get a clear declaration that Britain's participation in the invasion was the right thing to do.

Battling Britons' low expectations for the government-appointed panel, chairman John Chilcot insisted in an opening statement that it would not hold back from criticizing institutions and individuals where this was "warranted."

A 'WHITEWASH?'

A chorus of voices from across the political and legal spectrum is predicting that the inquiry, tasked with uncovering how and why Britain went to war, will be a "whitewash" and questions the competence of its six-member panel – which includes not a single lawyer or judge – to address the key issue of whether the invasion was illegal.

Attempts to bolster the inquiry's credibility were also damaged Sunday when a British newspaper published leaked government documents containing interviews the inquiry panel had conducted with senior military figures. The interviews showed that plans for the 2003 invasion were drafted more than a year earlier, contradicting previous statements made by Mr. Blair on the military buildup.

Antiwar protesters outside the inquiry this morning said cynically that Blair, who is expected to testify before the inquiry early next year, would be given "a warm welcome" when he appears.

"We're here to remind people that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and George W. Bush are not innocent and that they should face charges for war crimes," said Elly Badcock.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown agreed only reluctantly to the inquiry – the first official inquiry of three in Britain – once the last British troops left Iraq. He initially announced it would be closed to the public, but then relented – though "sensitive information" will still not be heard in public. Witnesses will not be under oath and immunity from disciplinary action has been granted to serving officials and military personnel.

The military is set to start its own examination of the war in January, and a similar government-appointed probe is under way in the Netherlands. The seven-member panel, including senior judges and figures who opposed the war, are scrutinizing British reasoning for the invasion.

ALLEGED ABUSES

Uncomfortable reminders of the conflict have not been far from the headlines for most of this month as a result of a barrage of claims about alleged abuses by British troops.

The latest allegations emerged in reports Nov. 18. Dozens of former prisoners at a British Army interrogation center in Iraq claim they suffered torture similar to the interrogation techniques used at Guantánamo Bay.

Those follow separate claims made two days earlier by a former soldier, Britain's first convicted war criminal. The soldier told an inquiry into the death of an Iraqi man in British military custody that abuse of Iraqi civilians was widespread and sanctioned by officers.

Bill Rammell, Britain's Armed Forces minister, said that all claims would be investigated but insisted that allegations did not equal facts, adding that there was no credible evidence that abuse was systematic.

While many in the British military have privately described the effects of the Iraq as "corrosive" on troop morale and on public support for overseas operations, these latest allegations could not have come at a worse time for a government struggling to shore up support for the Afghan campaign.

BRITISH NEED TO IMPROVE COUNTERINSURGENCY

Michael Codner, director of the Military Sciences department at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said that he was not convinced that the British involvement in southern part of Iraq would be looked on in the future as a strategic failure, adding: "The British did not crawl out with their tails between their legs."

In fact, he said that the eventual withdrawal of British troops from a wider area of occupation in southern Iraq to garrisons from which they supported local security forces is the logical next step in Afghanistan.

"When the military looks back on Iraq now, you get an acknowledgement that mistakes were made, but that appropriate changes needed to be made and have been made."

David Betz, of King's College, London, who has examined British strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, pointed out the British military is preparing to start its own formal study of the Iraq war in January.

"However, in the shorter term, what they have already taken from it [the war] is the sense and realization that the British Army is not terribly good at counterinsurgency, that they rested on their laurels to a large extent," he says. "There is a pretty strong sense that the Americans really surpassed them quite quickly."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1124/p06s07-woeu.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nuckelhedd



Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:15 pm    Post subject: Damn Gary Reply with quote

As much as i would love to tell you your ex PM is gold we all know the difference. That being said.... I thank you for your contributions. You are a light in the dark.

Keep it coming friend...

Travis

_________________
Today is the Tomorrow I waited for Yesterday
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3174
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not gonna happen, reminds me
of "Bush will be tried" etc.

It's 2009. Who's Bush/Blair?
Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bri wrote:
Not gonna happen, reminds me
of "Bush will be tried" etc.

It's 2009. Who's Bush/Blair?
Wink

Greetings ambivalent lurker!! - that doggie in the window over there knows its not gonna happen - but its not about that bri.
He's guilty no matter what! - So why shut up about it??
Hey bri? are you related to this guy by any chance?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2104

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not a chance in hell of phony Tony being tried for anything.

The NWO never comes down on their 'operatives' unless they seriously fuck up.

Otherwise how could they recruit new 'operatives'?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MichaelC wrote:
Not a chance in hell of phony Tony being tried for anything.

The NWO never comes down on their 'operatives' unless they seriously fuck up.

Otherwise how could they recruit new 'operatives'?


Anything in particular you don't like about him you could share Mike?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sign the Petition

To: President of the United Nations General Assembly and the UK Attorney General
BWCF - THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION


To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.

RE ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries listed, wish to uphold The United Nations Charter, The 1998 Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Rule of International Law, especially in respect of:-

1: 1949 Geneva Convention IV: Article 146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention.

2: 1907 Hague Convention IV: Article 3
A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

We therefore call on you to indict Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his capacity as recent Prime Minister of the UK, so long as he is able to answer for his actions and however long it takes, in respect of our sample complaints relating to the 2003 Iraq War waged by the UK as ally to the United States of America.

We are concerned that without justice and respect for the rule of law, the future for us and our progeny in a lawless world is bleak, as revealed by recent US declarations about the use of torture and the events of December 2008 in Gaza show.


The following are our sample complaints relating to the Iraq War 2003-2009:

1: Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maimings and traumas.

2: Employing radioactive ammunition causing long-term destruction of the planetary habitat.

3: Causing the breakdown of civil administration, with consequent lawlessness, especially looting, kidnapping, and violence, and consequent breakdown of womens’ rights, of religious freedom, and child and adult education.

4: Failing to maintain the medical needs of the populace.

5: Despoliation of the cultural heritage of the country.

6: Supporting an ally that employs ‘waterboarding’ and other tortures.

7: Seizing the assets of Iraq.

8: Using inhumane restraints on prisoners, including dogs, hoods, and cable ties.

9: Using Aggressive Patrolling indiscriminately, traumatising women and children and wrecking homes and property.

10: Marking bodies of prisoners with numbers, writing, faeces and other degrading treatment.

11: The use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons including white phosphorous on “shake and bake” missions.

12: Supporting indiscriminate rocket attacks from F16 fighter planes on women and children in Fallujah in Nov 2004

13: Supporting the shooting up of ambulances and medical personnel in Fallujah in Nov 2004

14: Supporting the expulsion of the entire population of Fallujah save for young men of military age, for a reprisal attack on that city in Nov 2004.
Sincerely,

The Undersigned



http://www.petitiononline.com/BWCF/petition.html


Last edited by GaryGo on Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's an oldie but goody

John Pilger laughs (darkly) at Tony Blair
John Pilger
Published 03 March 2003

Print versionEmail a friendListenRSS
When Saddam hanged a British journalist in 1990, MI5 had the journalist smeared in the Sun, and the Mail agreed he was a spy. What did Blair say? I can find nothing
Having failed to fabricate a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and prove that Iraq has a secret armoury of banned weapons, the warmongers have fallen back on the "moral case" for an unprovoked attack on a stricken country.

Farce has arrived. We want to laugh out loud, a deep and dark and almost grief-laden laugh, at Blair's concern for the "victims of Saddam Hussein" and his admonishment (reprinted in the Observer) of the millions of protesters: "There will be . . . no protests about the thousands of [Iraqi] children that die needlessly every year . . ."

First, let's look back to Saddam's most famous victim, the British journalist Farzad Bazoft, who was hanged in 1990 for "spying", a bogus trial following a bogus charge. Those of us who protested at his murder did so in the teeth of a smear campaign by the British government and a press determined to cover for Britain's favourite tyrant. The Sun smeared Bazoft by publishing his conviction for stealing when he was a student - information supplied by MI5 on behalf of the Thatcher government, which was then seeking any excuse not to suspend its lucrative business and arms deals with the Iraqi dictator. The Mail and Today suggested that Saddam was right - that Bazoft was a spy. In a memorable editorial, the Sunday Telegraph equated investigative journalism with criminal espionage. Defending Saddam, not his victim, was clearly preferable.

What did Tony Blair say about this outrage?

I can find nothing.

Did Blair join those of us who protested, on the streets and in print, at the fact that ministers such as Douglas Hurd were commuting to Baghdad, with Hurd going especially to celebrate the anniversary of the coming to power of the dictator I described as "renowned as the interrogator and torturer of Qasr-al-Nihayyah, the 'Palace of the End'"?

There is no record of Blair saying anything substantive about Saddam Hussein's atrocities until after 11 September 2001 when the Americans, having failed to catch Osama Bin Laden, declared Saddam their number one enemy. As for Blair's assertion that there have been "no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly under his rule", the answer is straightforward.

There have been years of protests about the effect of the Anglo-American embargo on the children of Iraq. That the US, backed by Britain, is largely responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths is the great unspoken in the so-called mainstream of politics and journalism. That the embargo allowed Saddam Hussein to centralise and reinforce his domestic control is equally unmentionable. Whenever the voluminous evidence of such a monumental western crime against humanity is laid out, the crocodile tears of Blair and the rest of the warmongers barely disguise their cynicism.

Denis Halliday, the former assistant secretary general of the United Nations who was the senior UN official in Baghdad, has many times identified the "genocide" of the American-driven sanctions. The UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has paid tribute to the Iraqi rationing system, giving it credit for saving an entire population from famine. This, like the evidence and witness of Halliday and his successor, Hans von Sponeck, and the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) and the Catholic Relief Agency (Cafod) and the 70 members of the US Congress who wrote to President Clinton describing the embargo as "infanticide masquerading as policy", has been airbrushed out.

In contrast, the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 has become part of Blair's and Bush's vocabulary. Eleven months after this atrocity, the assistant US secretary of state James Kelly flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein: "You are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq."

What did Blair say about this? I can find nothing.

Read the Murdoch press at the time. There is nothing about Saddam being "another Hitler"; no mention of torture chambers and appeasers. Saddam is one of us, because Washington says so. The Australian, Murdoch's flagship in the country of his birth, and currently a leading warmonger, thought the most regrettable aspect about Iraq's use of chemical weapons at Halabja was that it had "given Tehran a propaganda coup and may have destroyed western hopes of quiet diplomacy". Like other Murdoch papers, it defended Saddam by suggesting that Iraq's use of chemical and nerve agents was purely defensive.

Of the media warmongers in this country, it is difficult to choose the most absurd. Murdoch's blustering hagiographer, William ("Mr X") Shawcross must defer, alas, to David Aaronovitch, the retired Stalinist apologist now employed by the Guardian Group to poke a stick at its readership and whose penchant for getting things wrong makes him the doyen. In his condescending lecture to the millions who marched on 15 February, Aaronovitch wrote: "I wanted to ask, whether among your hundreds of thousands, the absences bothered you? The Kurds, the Iraqis - of whom there are many thousands in this country - where were they? Why were they not there?"

There were more than 4,000 Kurds marching en bloc. The Kurds foresee clearly yet another sell-out by the west, now that Washington is encouraging the Turkish military to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan. According to my Iraqi friends, there were "a minimum of 3,000 Iraqis" marching. Two years ago, I attended an Iraqi festival at Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall. More than 2,000 Iraqis were present with their families. When Denis Halliday called for an end to the economic siege of Iraq and the implementation of that crucial passage of Security Council Resolution 687, which requires a ban on weapons of mass destruction throughout the region, in Israel as much as Iraq, he received thunderous applause. Everyone there, it seemed to me, had little or no time for Saddam Hussein; but none wanted their country strangled, attacked and occupied by the west yet again.

Patrick Tyler, a perceptive writer in the New York Times, says that Bush and Blair now face a "tenacious new adversary" - the public. He says we are heading into a new bipolar world with two new superpowers: the regime in Washington on one side, and world public opinion on the other.

In a poll of half a million Europeans, Time magazine asked which country was the greatest threat to peace: 5.8 per cent said North Korea, 6.8 per cent said Iraq and 87 per cent said the United States.

In other words, the game is up. People have become aware, above all, that the most dangerous appeasement today has little to do with a regional tyrant, and everything to do with "our" governments.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200303030006

The catalogue of Tony Blair's deceptions are now being revealed by the day
3 Jun 2003
In his latest article for the Daily Mirror, John Pilger argues that the "high crime" of the invasion of Iraq that "will not melt away" and says the catalogue of Tony Blair's deceptions are now being revealed by the day, unravelling any credibility left.
Such a high crime does not, and will not, melt away; the facts cannot be changed. Tony Blair took Britain to war against Iraq illegally. He mounted an unprovoked attack on a country that offered no threat, and he helped cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people. The judges at the Nuremberg Tribunal following world war two, who inspired much of international law, called this "the gravest of all war crimes".

Blair had not the shred of a mandate from the British people to do what he did. On the contrary, on the eve of the attack, the majority of Britons clearly demanded he stop. His response was contemptuous of such an epic show of true democracy. He chose to listen only to the unelected leader of a foreign power, and to his court and his obsession.

With his courtiers in and out of the media telling him he was "courageous" and even "moral" when he scored his "historic victory" over a defenceless, stricken and traumatised nation, almost half of them children, his propaganda managers staged a series of unctuous public relations stunts.

The first stunt sought to elicit public sympathy with a story about him telling his children that he had "almost lost his job". The second stunt, which had the same objective, was a story about how his privileged childhood had really been "difficult" and "painful". The third and most outrageous stunt saw him in Basra, in southern Iraq last week, lifting an Iraqi child in his arms, in a school that had been renovated for his visit, in a city where education, like water and other basic services, are still a shambles following the British invasion and occupation.

When I saw this image of Blair holding a child in Basra, I happened to be in a hotel in Kabul in Afghanistan, the scene of an earlier "historic victory" of Bush and Blair in another stricken land. I found myself saying out loud the words, "ultimate obscenity". It was in Basra that I filmed hundreds of children ill and dying because they had been denied cancer treatment equipment and drugs under an embargo enforced with enthusiasm by Tony Blair.

It was the one story Blair's court would almost never tell, because it was true and damning.

Up to July last year, $5.4 billion in vital and mostly humanitarian supplies for the ordinary people of Iraq were being obstructed by the United States, backed by Britain. Professor Karol Sikora, head of the World Health Organisation's cancer treatment programme, who had been to the same hospitals in Basra that I saw, told me: "The excuse that certain drugs can be converted into weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous. I saw wards where dying people were even denied pain-killers."

That was more than three years ago. Now come forward to a hot May day in 2003, and here is Blair - shirt open, a man of the troops, if not of the people - lifting a child into his arms, for the cameras, and just a few miles from where I watched toddler after toddler suffer for want of treatment that is standard in Britain and which was denied as part of a medieval siege approved by Blair. Remember, the main reason that these life-saving drugs and equipment were blocked, the reason Professor Sikora and countless other experts ridiculed, was that essential drugs and even children's vaccines could be converted to weapons of mass destruction.

Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMD, has become part of the jargon of our time. When he finally goes, Blair ought have WMD chiselled on his political headstone. He has now been caught; for it must be clear to the most devoted courtier that he has lied about the primary reason he gave, repeatedly, for attacking Iraq.

THERE is a series of such lies; I have counted at least a dozen significant ones. They range from Blair's "solid evidence" linking Iraq with Al-Qaeda and September 11 (refuted by British intelligence) to claims of Iraq's "growing" nuclear weapons programme (refuted by the International Atomic Energy Agency when documents quoted by Blair were found to be forgeries), to perhaps his most audacious tale - that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction "could be activated within 45 minutes".

It is now Day 83 in the post-war magical mystery hunt for Iraq's "secret" arsenal. One group of experts, sent by George Bush, have already gone home.

This week, British intelligence sources exposed Blair's "45 minutes" claim as the fiction of one defector with scant credibility. A United Nations inspector has ridiculed Blair's latest claim that two canvas-covered lorries represent "proof" of mobile chemical weapons. Incredible, yesterday he promised "a new dossier".

It is ironic that the unravelling of Blair has come from the source of almost all his lies, the United States, where senior intelligence officers are now publicly complaining about their "abuse as political propagandists".

They point to the Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz who, said one of them, fed "the most alarming tidbits to the president ... so instead of giving the president the most considered, carefully examined information available, basically you give him the garbage. And then in a few days when it's clear that maybe it wasn't right, well then, you feed him some hot garbage."

That Blair's tale about Saddam Hussein being ready to attack "in 45 minutes" is part of the "hot garbage" is not surprising. What is surprising, or unbelievable, is that Blair did not know it was "hot", just as he must have known that Jack Straw and Colin Powell met in February to express serious doubts about the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction.

IT was all a charade. Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, has spoken this truth: the invasion of Iraq was planned long ago, he said, and that the issue of weapons rested largely on "fabricated evidence". Blair has made fools not so much of the British people, most of whom were and are on to him, but of respectable journalists and broadcasters who channelled and amplified his black propaganda as headlines and lead items on BBC news bulletins. They cried wolf for him. They gave him every benefit of the doubt, and so minimised his culpability and allowed him to set much of the news agenda.

For months, the charade of weapons of mass destruction overshadowed real issues we had a right to know about and debate - that the United States intended to take control of the Middle East by turning an entire country, Iraq, into its oil-rich base. History is our evidence. Since the 19th century, British governments have done the same, and the Blair government is no different.

What is different now is that the truth is winning through. This week, publication of an extraordinary map left little doubt that the British military had plastered much of Iraq with cluster bombs, many of which almost certainly have failed to detonate on impact. They usually wait for children to pick them up, then they explode, as in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

They are cowardly weapons; but of course this was one of the most craven of all wars, "fought" against a country with no navy, no air force and rag-tag army. Last month, HMS Turbulent, a nuclear-power submarine, slipped back to Plymouth, flying the Jolly Roger, the pirates' emblem. How appropriate.

THIS British warship fired 30 American Tomahawk missiles at Iraq. Each missile cost 700,000 pounds, a total of 21 million pounds in taxpayers' money. That alone would have provided the basic services that the British government has yet to restore to Basra, as it is obliged to do under international law.

What did HMS Turbulent's 30 missiles hit? How many people did they kill and maim? And why have we heard nothing about this? Perhaps the missiles had sensory devices that could distinguish Bush's "evil-doers" and Blair's "wicked men" from toddlers? What is certain is they were not aimed at the Ministry of Oil.

This cynical and shaming chapter in Britain's modern story was written in our name, your name. Blair and his collaborators ought not to be allowed to get away with it.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=234
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fake faith and epic crimes

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes a worldwide movement that is 'challenging the once-sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives and retain an immunity from justice'. In Tony Blair's case, justice inches closer.

These are extraordinary times. With the United States and Britain on the verge of bankruptcy and committing to an endless colonial war, pressure is building for their crimes to be prosecuted at a tribunal similar to that which tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. This defined rapacious invasion as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”. International law would be mere farce, said the chief US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, “if, in future, we do not apply its principles to ourselves”.

That is now happening. Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Britain have long had “universal jurisdiction” statutes, which allow their national courts to pursue and prosecute prima facie war criminals. What has changed is an unspoken rule never to use international law against “ourselves”, or “our” allies or clients. In 1998, Spain, supported by France, Switzerland and Belgium, indicted the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, client and executioner of the West, and sought his extradition from Britain, where he happened to be at the time. Had he been sent for trial he almost certainly would have implicated at least one British prime minister and two US presidents in crimes against humanity. Home Secretary Jack Straw let him escape back to Chile.

The Pinochet case was the ignition. On 19 January last, the George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley compared the status of George W. Bush with that of Pinochet. “Outside [the United States] there is not the ambiguity about what to do about a war crime,” he said. “So if you try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you not as ‘former President George Bush’ [but] as a current war criminal.” For this reason, Bush’s former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who demanded an invasion of Iraq in 2001 and personally approved torture techniques in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, no longer travels. Rumsfeld has twice been indicted for war crimes in Germany. On 26 January, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, said, “We have clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but nevertheless he ordered torture.”

The Spanish high court is currently investigating a former Israeli defence minister and six other top Israeli officials for their role in the killing of civilians, mostly children, in Gaza. Henry Kissinger, who was largely responsible for bombing to death 600,000 peasants in Cambodia in 1969-73, is wanted for questioning in France, Chile and Argentina. Yet, on 8 February, as if demonstrating the continuity of American power, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, said, “I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger.”

Like them, Tony Blair may soon be a fugitive. The International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of petitions related to Blair’s wars. Spain’s celebrated Judge Baltasar Garzon, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinian military junta, has called for George W. Bush, Blair and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq - “one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history: a devastating attack on the rule of law” that had left the UN “in tatters”. He said, “There is enough of an argument in 650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay.”

This is not to say Blair is about to be collared and marched to The Hague, where Serbs and Sudanese dictators are far more likely to face a political court set up by the West. However, an international agenda is forming and a process has begun which is as much about legitimacy as the letter of the law, and a reminder from history that the powerful lose wars and empires when legitimacy evaporates. This can happen quickly, as in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of apartheid South Africa – the latter a spectre for apartheid Israel.

Today, the unreported “good news” is that a worldwide movement is challenging the once sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can destroy countless lives in the cause of an ancient piracy, often at remove in distance and culture, and retain their respectability and immunity from justice. In his masterly Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde R.L. Stevenson writes in the character of Jekyll: “Men have before hired bravos to transact their crimes, while their own person and reputation sat under shelter ... I could thus plod in the public eye with a load of genial respectability, and, in a moment, like a schoolboy, strip off these lendings and spring headlong into the sea of liberty. But for me, in my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete.”

Blair, too, is safe – but for how long? He and his collaborators face a new determination on the part of tenacious non-government bodies that are amassing “an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges”, according to international law authority Richard Falk, who cites the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005, which heard evidence from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, Bush and others. Currently, the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for Blair’s prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and the 1949 Geneva Convention. In a separate indictment, former Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court E.W. Thomas wrote: “My pre-disposition was to believe that Mr. Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion is that Mr. Blair deliberately ands repeatedly misled Cabinet, the British Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own self-deception. His deception was deliberate.”

Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East Envoy for the Quartet (the US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the bloodbath in Gaza. To assist his mortgages, he recently received an Israeli “peace prize” worth a million dollars. He, too, is careful where he travels; and it is instructive to watch how he now uses the media. Having concentrated his post-Downing Street apologetics on a BBC series of obsequious interviews with David Aaronovitch, Blair has all but slipped from view in Britain, where polls have long revealed a remarkable loathing for a former prime minister – a sentiment now shared by those in the liberal media elite whose previous promotion of his “project” and crimes is an embarrassment and preferably forgotten.

On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer’s former leading Blair fan, declared that “this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply buried”. He demanded, “Did Blair never ask what was going on?”. This is an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: “Did the Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?”. In 2001, Rawnsley alerted his readers to Iraq’s “contribution to international terrorism” and Saddam Hussein’s “frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass destruction”. Both assertions were false and echoed official Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was launched, Rawnsley described it as a “point of principle” for Blair who, he later wrote, was “fated to be right”. He lamented, “Yes, too many people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short.” In the subsequent six years at least a million people have been killed. According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans. Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys.

Far from the carping turncoats at home, Blair has lately found a safe media harbour – in Australia, the original murdochracy. His interviewers exude an unction reminiscent of the promoters of the “mystical” Blair in the Guardian of than a decade ago, though they also bring to mind Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times during the 1930s, who wrote of his infamous groveling to the Nazis: “I spend my nights taking out anything which will hurt their susceptibilities and dropping in little things which are intended to sooth them.”

With his words as a citation, the finalists for the Geoffrey Dawson Prize for Journalism (Antipodes) are announced. On 8 February, in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Geraldine Doogue described Blair as “a man who brought religion into power and is now bringing power to religion”. She asked him: “What would the perception be that faith would bring towards a greater stability... [sic]?”. A bemused and clearly delighted Blair was allowed to waffle about “values”. Doogue said to him that “it was the bifurcation about right and wrong that what I thought the British found really hard” [sic], to which Blair replied that “in relation to Iraq I tried every other option [to invasion] there was”. It was his classic lie, which passed unchallenged.

However, the clear winner of the Geoffrey Dawson Prize is Ginny Dougary of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied Blair on what she described as his “James Bondish-ish Gulfstream” where she was privy to his “bionic energy levels”. She wrote, “I ask him the childlike question: does he want to save the world?”. Blair replied, well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. “That is war, I’m afraid,” said Blair, “and war is horrible”. No counter came that Gaza was not a war but a massacre by any measure. As for the Palestinians, noted Dougary, it was Blair’s task to “prepare them for statehood”. The Palestinians will be surprised to hear that. But enough gravitas; her man “has the glow of the newly-in-love: in love with the world and, for the most part, the feeling is reciprocated”. The evidence she offered for this absurdity was that “women from both sides of politics have confessed to me to having the hots for him”.

These are extraordinary times. Blair, a perpetrator of the epic crime of the 21st century, shares a “prayer breakfast” with President Obama, the yes-we-can-man now launching more war. “We pray,” said Blair, “that in acting we do God’s work and follow God’s will.” To decent people, such pronouncements about Blair’s “faith” represent a contortion of morality and intellect that is a profanation on the basic teachings of Christianity. Those who aided and abetted his great crime and now wish the rest of us to forget their part - or, like Alistair Campbell, his “communications director”, offer their bloody notoriety for the vicarious pleasure of some – might read the first indictment proposed by the Blair War Crimes Foundation: “Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maiming and traumas.”

These are indeed extraordinary times.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=528
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Untouchable: Blair to give Iraq War evidence in secret
Former PM was happy to discuss invasion with Fern Britton on TV show – but the Chilcot inquiry will hear his crucial testimony behind closed doors

By Jane Merrick and Brian Brady
Sunday, 13 December 2009
It will be seen as supremely ironic that Mr Blair made the confession in the cosy surroundings of a documentary about his religious beliefs, in Fern Britton Meets? to be broadcast on BBC1 today, yet the public will be denied the chance to see any difficult questioning

Tony Blair News
Read News on Tony Blair.Get better results with Bing™.
bing.com/news

Key parts of Tony Blair's evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War will be held in secret, sources close to the hearings revealed last night.

His conversations with President George Bush when he was prime minister, and crucial details of the decision-making process that led Britain into war, will fall under the scope of national security and the protection of Britain's relations with the US.

But there are also suggestions by well-placed sources that anything "interesting" will also be shrouded in secrecy, leaving his public appearance containing little more than is already known.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.