• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Blair rejects blame for terrorism

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Blair rejects blame for terrorism

    Blair rejects blame for terrorism
    The war on terror will not be won unless people stop blaming UK foreign policy for causing it, Prime Minister Tony Blair told Labour delegates.

    In his last conference speech to the party, he argued that to retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan now would "put our future security in the deepest peril".

    "This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it," he said.
    You deceitful barstard.

    You know as well as we do that people aren't saying you caused it Tony - they are saying you made it a fuck sight worse!

    #2
    Reminds me of Mandy Rice-Davis "Well he would say that wouldn’t he"
    "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

    Comment


      #3
      He is not entirely wrong. 9/11 happened BEFORE Iraq or Afghanistan and the problem would exist with fundamentalist Islam if neither had ever happened, however, only a damn fool would claim that Iraq has not made the job of the extremists much easier.
      bloggoth

      If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
      John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by xoggoth
        He is not entirely wrong. 9/11 happened BEFORE Iraq or Afghanistan and the problem would exist with fundamentalist Islam if neither had ever happened, however, only a damn fool would claim that Iraq has not made the job of the extremists much easier.
        ..
        "Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.

        Comment


          #5
          He has at least given some of our soldiers something to do

          Comment


            #6
            The war on terror will not be won unless people stop blaming UK foreign policy for causing it,
            Terrorism has existed for many years before Tony Blair was a twinkle in his mother's eyes, it will still be around many years after he has turned to dust.

            When history looks back on the Blair/Bush years it will seem like the Western Liberal demoncracies actually lost ground. That is because our liberal rights are being curtailed as a means of dealing with terrorism. Terrorism, which is to force political change through the use of terror, has therefore succeeded as rights are curtailed to deal with them.

            By going into Iraq he has provided a spark which has encourged many to flock to the terrorist cause. By reducing our rights he has encouraged them to act by reacting to each terrorist act.

            It can be no accident, that the first suicide bombings on the UK mainland occured after Iraq.

            The terrorist can be dealt with by not allowing their barbarity to force change. With proper investigation of terrorist attacks so that those responsible will be brought to justice in an open and fair way, in front of a judge and jury of their peers.

            What we have is a curtailment of habeus corpus, the right to free speech, innocent people being shot (twice).

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by wendigo100
              You know as well as we do that people aren't saying you caused it Tony - they are saying you made it a fuck sight worse!
              OF course we could always adopt a Mr Nevil Chamberlain approach and just fold like a pack of french made spanish playing cards couldnt we?

              Then again...here's a thought, lets go after the f8ckers instead of holding a piece of paper in the air proclaiming peace in our time (or aimlessly lobbing a couple cruise missiles in to sudanese farm land).

              Nah...thats not right...we hold the moral ground...we are meant to be the good guys arent we?

              Terrorism existed long before TB and will be around a heck of a lot longer after he is gone. The only deceitful people around here are those who would hoist the surrender flags without a fight (not that Im looking at you W ).

              Mailman

              Comment


                #8
                He might have been a bastard, but he was once our bastard

                If there was one country where a bit of old-fashioned realpolitik would have excluded al-Queda, it's Iraq - "Saddam buddy, stay out of Kurdistan, the rest is yours - just keep al-Queda out". Instead the invasion made Iraq safe for al-Queda, and put American and British troops in danger. Anyone who thinks that Iraq will emerge as a functioning democracy is deluded. We will just have to hope that a vicious, violent military strongman will emerge.

                Comment


                  #9
                  By going into Iraq he has provided a spark which has encourged many to flock to the terrorist cause. By reducing our rights he has encouraged them to act by reacting to each terrorist act.
                  And which rights are these? People like to go on and on about the reduction of rights...yet they never explain which ones they are talking about?

                  You talking about protesting? Sheeet, you can still protest (even outside Parliament or Number 10).

                  Free speach? Heck, wannabe jihadis are still calling for your head to be lopped off (in down town London).

                  So which ones you talkin bout?

                  It can be no accident, that the first suicide bombings on the UK mainland occured after Iraq.
                  It was no accident the Irish didnt start bombing London or it was no accident the Germans didnt start bombing London until after the English declared war on them either.

                  What we have is a curtailment of habeus corpus, the right to free speech, innocent people being shot (twice).
                  What, a person was shot twice or two people shot once?

                  ACTUALLY...if one wanted to be particularly accurate one could argue that the invasion of Iraq was an islam friendly invasion. After all Saddams regime was secular in nature and by removing him and replacing him with a government based on islamic principles we have made life better for them peace loving islamies in Iraq.

                  Mailman
                  Last edited by Mailman; 27 September 2006, 12:55.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by white-anglo-reactionary
                    Instead the invasion made Iraq safe for al-Queda,
                    Made Iraq safe for AQ? BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA...ok...I guess if you consider being more likely to be blown up by an allied air attack then maybe you have a point

                    and put American and British troops in danger.
                    Sorta like how those evil marines who were in their barracks in Lebanon back in 82 werent in much danger aye?

                    Anyone who thinks that Iraq will emerge as a functioning democracy is deluded. We will just have to hope that a vicious, violent military strongman will emerge.
                    You got a time frame for this? The fact the people have voted (not just the once) sorta makes you the deluded one here

                    Mailman

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X