PDA

View Full Version : Teflon Tony nominates another scapegoat..


terryJones
3rd Mar 2006, 21:40
It seems that it was all down to God that we have guys getting killed in the middle east.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4772142.stm
Like I always said, religion has started far more wars than it has finished.
Bluey, Blair is convinced :hmm:

tilewood
3rd Mar 2006, 21:55
So it' all god's fault. As you pass Downing St, if you listen
hard enough you can hear the sounds of hands being washed!

Oh to be a politician in Blair's Britain. "Not me guv - I ain't
paid to think!!" :*

soddim
3rd Mar 2006, 22:36
I have always believed that Jesus came into our World to save us from our sins, not to act as scapegoat for the commission of them.

Just which side of the religious divide, good or evil, is Tony on?

G-CPTN
3rd Mar 2006, 22:42
Is Tony's God the same one that Dubya uses? If so it's not surprising that they made the same decision - to go and fight the other man's God.

Onan the Clumsy
4th Mar 2006, 00:20
Maybe he should have asked the Spaghetti Monster or the Giant Ball Of String.




"The only way you can take a decision like that is to do the right thing according to your conscience." ...he has one?

BDiONU
4th Mar 2006, 06:54
Is Tony's God the same one that Dubya uses? If so it's not surprising that they made the same decision - to go and fight the other man's God.

Bush/Blair and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them.

BD

419
4th Mar 2006, 07:48
Maybe he should have asked the Spaghetti Monster

That's no way to talk about Cherie!

Unwell_Raptor
4th Mar 2006, 07:52
Bush/Blair and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion.

I'm not sure that reason and discussion were at the top of Saddam's agenda, nor does al-Quaeda go much for negotiations over a refreshing dish of tea.

WG774
4th Mar 2006, 13:03
An interesting quote from a BBC radio interview dated October 2004:


Tony Blair was convinced in his belief that war against Iraq was justified. From my point of view beliefs are not a sufficient justification for killing people. He finds it difficult to change his beliefs even when all the evidence contradicts his beliefs. In his speech to the Labour Party conference on 28 September 2004 he made the following bizarre statement: ‘I only know what I believe’. He has made a fundamental mistake of confusing believing with knowing. It’s the problem with fundamentalists everywhere. Blair is a Christian.
As I say, we are able to believe all sorts of strange things for which there is no evidence. As the philosopher Montaigne said: “Nothing is so firmly believed as what is least known.”


The concept of using reasoning based on religious "beliefs" to justify the most serious decision a Prime Minister can ever make is positively medieval; as others have hinted, a practice befitting of the Crusades...

Be afraid, be very afraid...

:uhoh:

Source Of Quote (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1736)

XXTSGR
4th Mar 2006, 14:38
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Alice in Wonderland.

EastMids
4th Mar 2006, 21:15
Mr Blair told show host Michael Parkinson: "In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well."

Well I suppose that now he's realised no one else supports his decision, he might as well say he was supported by someone who can't answer back! :hmm:

Conan the Librarian
5th Mar 2006, 00:32
I feel a bit vindictive too. People are dying because some "nameless" soul, wants to back it off on "God".

In a war that increasingly becomes pivotal on belief, the additoin to this argument on behalf of a rather secular nation, which is how it seems to me, will do untold harm. Those with a fascination for the eastern compass point, cannot be blamed for thinking of yet another Crusade. Wholly irresponsible in my view.

And this tosser represents me? Blood pressure rising, off to bed.

Conan

The other and no less valid argument, is for our chaps and chapesses in the military. They must be really impressed.

PS Will go beddybyes now. Honestly. So F*cking mad....


Nitey night..

ExSimGuy
5th Mar 2006, 15:22
Blair is a Christian
Sorry - I try to follow that particular route, and telling wholesale lies to an entire nation in an attempt to excuse ignoring the UN and going the way that Dubbyah wants, is not a Christian action.:eek:

BDiONU
5th Mar 2006, 15:29
Sorry - I try to follow that particular route, and telling wholesale lies to an entire nation in an attempt to excuse ignoring the UN and going the way that Dubbyah wants, is not a Christian action.:eek:

Hey If President Tony says he's a christian thats good enough for me, I have faith in him.

BD

Huck
5th Mar 2006, 16:01
I'm with you, ExSimGuy. Here's the real deal:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: ...‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

The anti-war movement in the US, by the way, has been partly led for years by Christian ministers.

Huck
5th Mar 2006, 16:27
Found another (and no more I promise):

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

frostbite
5th Mar 2006, 17:10
The Barry ('Eve of Destruction') McGuire song, 'With God on their Side', says it all for me.

yintsinmerite
5th Mar 2006, 17:23
Now I am worried, our pime minister takes advice from a mythical being. Strange, some people end up in mental hospitals for hearing voices :}

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Mar 2006, 17:27
Alexi Sayle was on local radio here a while back, and commented on Blair and his 'faith'.

"So, Tony", he said, "you don't judge things by the damage you're causing, you just have this little man in your head, and if it's OK by him then that's all right?"

It's scary that the two most powerful men in the world are guided by superstition, rather than by reason. :(

SSD

Flyingspaniard
5th Mar 2006, 18:17
I know Blair bashing is fashionable these days, but I have to laugh at everybody's 20:20 hindsight. On seeing this thread I started wondering what people were saying on this forum back when the war on Iraq was pending.

It makes some interesting reading. Many people who now happily criticise Bush/Blair for going to war, are the same people who back then lacked this clarity or in some cases felt the opposite (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=66831).

I also found a poll (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=80908) too, which although contains fairly balanced views on the idea of going to war, shows that at the time, the majority felt it was the right thing to do.

So why now does practically everybody think that they would have made the right decision at the time themselves? I find everyones derision of Tony Blair and his decision to go to war laughable because at the time this debate was being had in workplaces, around dinner tables and in pubs accross the land and I don't recall at any point the certainties that I'm reading on this board now.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Mar 2006, 18:49
Well, Flyingspaniard, you can count me out for one. When this illegal invasion was being mooted, I sent an e-mail to everyone I knew asking what fcuk was going on. I just could not understand how invasion could be justified, especially when opposed by the UN. And I never believd the 'WMD a danger to the West' line, either, and said so at the time, long before it became painfully obvious that they were just lies by the teflon one. I'm no Francophile, but I did ask at the time "does anyone know where I can get a French flag?".

It made no sense to me for Tone to support the mad Texan's ambitions then, and it still doesn't. I wasn't alone, either.

SSD

yintsinmerite
5th Mar 2006, 19:08
Well as for the 'illegal' war, I was opposed from the start and am happy to admit I marched in London. And that is the funny thing. If Bliar has said

' right guys, despite the fact that the US had been trading with this guy for years, he is a right bar steward, uses torture and massacres thousands',
I would have been 100% behind the idea of getting him and to hell with what the UN said. But he didn't, he went along with the mad Texan's idea of 'tell them he is a threat to the west' and lied through his pearly whitened teeth. That is unforgivable and he and the cowpoke have now created a really scary situation and made the world less safe.

WG774
5th Mar 2006, 19:42
Well as for the 'illegal' war, I was opposed from the start and am happy to admit I marched in London.

Same here.

Am I the only one who suspects that Bliar's reference to his religious "duty" is a cheap way to garner votes? The UK has a lot of God-fearing folk...just ask Tone's pal Sir-Cliff-The-Hetero about the record sales he had a few years back at Chrimbo time...

Lowest-common-denominator, Bush-style tactics to attract the most brain-washed and frightened voters...

:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

SpinSpinSugar
5th Mar 2006, 20:18
Quite. Many of those who were supportive at the time were so based upon information provided to them by their Government, who were presenting, at best, dubious leaps of speculative logic as cast-iron fact, relayed without challenge by complicit sections of the hysterical press. It's that betrayal of trust which grates most, and has so hastened the general degeneration of trust in all politicians today.

I can't actually watch Bliar on television these days, I have to mute the set or change channel. Couldn't bring myself to watch Parky.

RiskyRossco
5th Mar 2006, 20:45
Once more, with feeling. . .

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Religion doesn't cause war. Stupid and arrogant people start wars, then stupid and arrogant people run wars. Not to be confused with those who defend against aggression and take up arms to end it, of course.
If Christianity is a religion, solely by it's faith structure, nowhere in my Bible does it say 'Kill the unbeliever". Not all Moslems are radical militants with a hatred of all things non-Islamic.
Can we lift our awareness above a knee-jerk reaction, now? Okay.
:rolleyes:

Unwell_Raptor
5th Mar 2006, 21:13
nowhere in my Bible does it say 'Kill the unbeliever

There's quite a lot of smiting to be done if you follow Leviticus.

Flyingspaniard
5th Mar 2006, 23:03
At the time I too was against going to war based on the facts that we knew at the time.

People talk about this sexed up dossier all the time as though it was Blair lying through his teeth. How so? The dossier that I read cover to cover at as it was presented on the BBC website, presented facts and gave opinions. Although the opinions turned out to be incorrect, the facts didn't.

Here are some of the main conclusions in the dossier:

Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability, in breach of UNSCR 687, which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents;
Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;
Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles;
Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq;
Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687, which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer range ballistic missiles;
Iraq's current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons;
Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within forty five minutes of a decision to do so;
Iraq has learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors;
Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes are well-funded.

Can anybody tell me which statement above is a categorical lie?

If based on the above conclusions you did or didn't want to the government to send troops in to Iraq that's fair enough, however to say that because the dossier was sexed-up it persuaded you to a different conclusion means you didn't interpret these facts for yourself. Don't blame the dossier.

Tony Blair is fallible as are we. He took the information he had and he made a decision just like we all did at the time.

FS

Dop
5th Mar 2006, 23:21
If Tony Blair had said that his decision would be judged by, say, a six foot invisible rabbit called Harvey, then he'd be quietly removed from office.

Personally, I don't see any difference between one mythological figure and another.

WG774
5th Mar 2006, 23:34
If Tony Blair had said that his decision would be judged by, say, a six foot invisible rabbit called Harvey, then he'd be quietly removed from office.
Personally, I don't see any difference between one mythological figure and another.

Nice post!

Nothing inspires more passion than that which cannot be proven...

Huck
6th Mar 2006, 03:11
I was on the fence before this mess until Colin Powell spoke to the UN.

Here was the man that wrote The Powell Doctrine - the rules to follow to prevent another Vietnam - justifying the invasion.

Don't hear his name mentioned much any more, do we? Wonder if he has regrets....

Personally, I don't see any difference between one mythological figure and another.

Easy: one's a two-thousand-year-old moral and social paradigm that has inspired and guided billions, some of whom may have actually had a brain as large as yours....

Blacksheep
6th Mar 2006, 03:38
I also found a poll too, which ... ...shows that at the time, the majority felt it was the right thing to do.
Only because they had been lied to by a fairly convincing pair of liars. Remember that embarrassing pile of bullshit that was unloaded at the UN Security Council for example? They both knew it was rubbish. Even Colin Powell who presented the nonsense, knew it was pure manure.
Can anybody tell me which statement above is a categorical lie?
All except the second statement are wholly or partly incorrect and both Bush and Blair knew it. Taken as a whole, there is nothing there that indicates any kind of threat to the United States or the United Kingdom.
Bush and Blair are responsible to their electorate only for protecting their respective nations against real threats.

Tony Blair now admits that "the intelligence was wrong" but says that the act of aggression by the United states and Great Britain - the invasion of another nation's sovereign territory and the overthrow of its government - was nevertheless, "the right thing to do". There are plenty of other despicable dictators out there, but note that neither of the guilty pair suggest we should do anything about them.

He lied to parliament and the nation. Now he pays the price - no thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

yintsinmerite
6th Mar 2006, 11:41
"There are plenty of other despicable dictators out there, but note that neither of the guilty pair suggest we should do anything about them"

Spot on. What ever real motives they had (Oil/Family feud/Large white rabbit called Harvey) could not be used, neither could the abuse of human rights because they would then have to explain why Mugabe etc. are tolerated. So they dream up a dossier of half truths, add a sprinkling of terrorist paranoia and head off. What is really worrying is that it really does seem as if little or no thought was given in advance as to who/what would be in Saddam's place.

Rananim
6th Mar 2006, 12:18
Nice noble sentiments from nice people but all of them wrong;God will be Blair's judge in the end and I'm sure he'll make a better job of it then you lot.Blair never spoke of hearing voices or any other such bs..all this appeared in the left-wing media(both in the UK and here in the States)in an effort to besmirch his good name.
Leaders make tough decisions and a good one would be governed by conscience to a certain degree in that decision-making.This pre-emptive approach to the war on terror(and the survival of western civilization in general)has made Bush appear paranoid and heedless to the nice people of the world,that much is true.Its a thankless task but the alternative is a reactive policy which would be disastrous considering the nature of the enemy.People have short selective memories;they wont thank you for stopping a dangerous tyrant who destabilized an already unstable world but they'll remember the body bags and the rising prices of gasoline.Natural enough I guess.
The disappointment in Iraq has weakened Bush at a time when its very dangerous to be weak;the mistakes made in the planning and execution of the entire military operation in those spring months of 2003 have been costly.Reluctance to commit to a full invasion force and heedance to Arab sensibilities hampered it from the outset.The morale of the story is when you supposedly "liberate" a country,treat it as an invasion until you know better.This is basic military strategy;the initial strike is overwhelming and without any remorse,an outright decimation of your enemy.You then encircle and take prisoners.Dont let them decide who's your friend and whos your enemy;you decide that.You then protect the economic resources for what good is the invasion if they are not defended?The removal of firepower and hardware is the next and crucial step and finally a complete shutdown and isolation of the country by employing curfew and border control.Very little of this was done because they thought they could win it in the air and depend on the hearts and minds of the ordinary Iraqi citizens.This was a gross miscalculation.Conquer first,then liberate in a manner of your chosing and according to your own timetable."The maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect."(Clausewitz)
For a country that size,you're talking years not months.
If this was not feasible economically or militarily,then go back to the drawing board and employ sanctions and air-strikes to effect a temporary control of the threat.But dont get caught halfway between the two.

airship
6th Mar 2006, 13:09
Does anyone remember the "good olde days" when political party broadcasts on the telly were announced as such...?! ;)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
6th Mar 2006, 13:14
Nice noble sentiments from nice people but all of them wrong;God will be Blair's judge in the end and I'm sure he'll make a better job of it then you lot.

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a six foot invisible rabbit called 'Harvey'?

It bothers me not one jot what folk believe, unless it affects me or mine. When the two most powerful men in the world openly admit they are influenced by the supernatural when making major decisions that are costing REAL lives, that worries me. It wories me on two counts:

1) That they base major descisions on personal and un-provable faith rather than on rational balancing of the KNOWN facts.

2) That they are stupid enough to admit in public that they did this.

SSD

Flyingspaniard
6th Mar 2006, 13:23
All except the second statement are wholly or partly incorrect and both Bush and Blair knew it. Taken as a whole, there is nothing there that indicates any kind of threat to the United States or the United Kingdom.

As far as I'm aware the points in question regarding the sexing up of the dossier are the claim about uranium being sought in Africa and the ambiguous statement about the 45mins to launch weapons. But can you really say that these 2 facts alone changed your stance on whether we should go to war or not?

You may think that I'm making a big deal of this, but I'm tired of hearing the same old thing about being taken to war based on lies:

So they dream up a dossier of half truths, add a sprinkling of terrorist paranoia and head off.

No PMs in the past have sought parliamentary approval or published any intelligence whatsoever. If the PM was so keen to go to war that he would tell bare faced lies to Parliament then surely he wouldn't have bothered putting the invasion up to the vote in the first place - he could have sat down with JIC, had a cabinet meeting and then sent in the troops regardless and kept everyone in the dark for reasons of national security.

As I have already said - he took the information he had, presented it to the house albeit with a slant, and let them decide so that he could be sure of their support. The mistake he made was believing that people would stick to their convictions in the face of the difficulties and problems that are now all too familiar.

I guess its human nature to jump from a sinking ship.

airship
6th Mar 2006, 14:20
Oh, Britain's a sinking ship now is it...?!

Flyingspaniard
6th Mar 2006, 14:46
Who said anything about Britain - I was referring to the fact that those who supported action at the time, because it was right to take a tough stance, now choose to blame a dossier and TB for knowingly lying to parliament despite the fact that both have been scrutinised intensely by committees and investigations. None of these have concluded that our PM lied.

I know everybody wants to see TB fail - as I said at the start, its fashionable these days - but can we not just say that he made the decision to go to war on a matter of conscience and that our 20:20 hindsight has proved this decision to be wrong.

Why does everybody jump on the bandwagon making out that they they would never have endorsed the war had they known that there were no WMD. No one ever knew for certain. There was only ever certainty that Iraq had the capability to develop long range biochem weapons. This is a fact I don't think anybody disputes even today??

BlooMoo
6th Mar 2006, 16:53
'paradigm - A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them'

one's a two-thousand-year-old moral and social paradigm that has inspired and guided billions

I think you're confusing a religious movement with God - or more specifically - Christianity with a purely hypothetical entity. Blair wasn't suggesting he would be judged by people who regard themselves as Christian - he said he would ultimately be judged by a God.

Either he genuinely believes this - in which case he believes that the 'judgement' of his electorate is secondary or inferior to that of an 'imaginary' being
-or-
he doesn't really believe this - in which case he was trying to ingratiate both empathy and sympathy from those with strong religious beliefs.

I don't know which is worse.

BM:sad:

Huck
6th Mar 2006, 17:59
I think you're confusing a religious movement with God - or more specifically - Christianity with a purely hypothetical entity.

OK, I'll give you that.

Now let me ask you lot this, and I'm actually curious as to your perspective - look back at some of the stunning decisions made by our supreme commanders in WWII. Do you think that they were always decided by our leaders' concept of the national will, rather than some higher calling that occasionally overrides the people's collective opinion? (The lend-lease act comes to mind, where FDR risked being burned at the stake, and not by some minority fringe.) They did things because they were "right." Their sources for said rightness were varied, but they did indeed exist, for them, at any rate.

The Civil Rights Act in the states was another. Another Texan president pushed it through, and I honestly think he did it for one reason - he thought it was the "right" thing to do. He certainly risked some violent opposition to do it. He was there in Dealey Plaza, after all....

THIS is what I see as the big problem with W (and Tony too I guess). Not that they refer to their faith for guidance - true leaders have done this in the past - but that they lose the PRIMARY component of said faith, i.e. humility. Make your decision, then constantly reevaluate - heck we're taught that as airline pilots. At some point W needed to chase the advisors out of the temple and get some fresh insight - i.e. the cure is worse than the disease in Iraq. The army is undermanned. The UN has more to offer. For God's sake take the prison scandal seriously. I could go on....