Man invades the Leveson Hearing with Blair - shouting he is a War Criminal
 

Was just Live

Great Man he grabbed the desk near the judge,


Blair is a Fecking War Criminal

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...72_634x440.jpg

i like Tony Blair. Nice to see a politician with conviction, a man that's not only concerned with the next election.

The man has character, unlike the gummy worms that came after him Brown and Miliband.

:shocked:

Haha legend :laugh:

A shame the British public wasn't so passionate about Saddam Hussein while he was in power, perhaps this gentleman should have done the same thing to Saddam Hussein while he was in power, then maybe he'd understand the difference between real war criminals and democratically elected politicians.

this man will be back out on the streets in freedom tomorrow i assume. if he did this to saddam hussein he'd be killed.

:joker: :joker: :joker: :joker: :joker: :joker: :joker: :joker: :joker: :joker: :joker:

So what, we should never criticise leaders and politicians because in some countries you'd get killed for doing so?

There should be some perspective and relativism. Screaming about Tony Blair when the likes of Assad, and Castro, and Kim-Jong Un, and Amadinajad etc are out there just looks silly.

Well Blair is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths

no he's not. Al Queda, the Taliban, and Militant Islam are responsible for those deaths. They struct first on 9/11. Our retaliation is defensive.

It was our invasion of Iraq that gave Al Qaeda a strong foothold in the country. And look where they are now, nearly 10 years since the start of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths, Iraq has just got another corrupt dictator in charge

Saddam Hussein was never our prime minister. We either get involved in every example of a dictatorship in the world, or we get involved in none. Picking and choosing our moral stands doesn't actually make them moral at all.

Do you think America over reacted at all?

oh plz, the problem is not bush or blair or the wars, the problem is their culture. they have the education level of the average American 8 year old, 80% illeteracy. These are not people we are dealing with, these are brainwashed zombies. brainwashed by Islam.

That's why so much of our (NATO) mission has been about education and building schools and hospitals and democratic institutions. the only way to fight them is to try to educate the people. That's why they target schools!

Tony Blair didn't make these people ignorant and brainwashed, Militant Islam and arab culture did.
the vast majority of deaths in these wars are from suicide bombers, roadsidebombs(IEDS) and the taliban using civilian positions to attack.

They literally position themselves among women and children so that they can use civilian deaths as propaganda afterwards. Don't be dumb enuf to fall for it. Every woman and child killed in this war is by their own design.

you cannot blame Blair for brainwashed islamic militants.

over reacted? no. i think we(America) were incredibly restrained. remember that 9/11 was not the first attack, thhey first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, and we tried a measured response.

And what did we get for our restrained response in 1993 attack on the wtc?? we got 9/11 8 years later.

You cannot say America over-reacted.

We tried diplomacy and small response after the 1993 attack on the WTC, and what we got in response to our restraint was 9/11.

IMO our response to 9/11 was still very restrained. Most Americans would have been happy to see the entire middle east nuked.

wrong, there is nothing wrong with taking them on 1 at a time. Where do you get this all or nothing mentality?

Taleban? Which war are you talking about here?

And your language is just pretty much that of Imperialists 100/200 years ago; these non-whites are too dumb to manage their own affairs, they need us to come and show them what to do, because really we've set such a good example haven't we? It's not like we funded the Taleban when it was the Soviets they were fighting, it's not like we've replaced their rule in Afghanistan, and Saddam's rule in Iraq, with a corrupt government, it's not like we've brought war and devastation to their countries is it? How about you don't be dumb enough to fall for the West = good, Middle east = bad, binary view of the world and think everything we're doing there is out of the goodness of our hearts and strictly for their benefit

And if you think Arabs are too dumb to govern themselves or decide what they want then where have you been the last 2 years? Have you been completely oblivious to people in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Yemen etc. etc. who have been able to rise up against their corrupt governments, some of whom had the backing of the West - remember Mubarak, Hilary Clinton's "family friend"?

That's not what America/UK does though. We've left numerous long standing dictators in place, and unworried.

the educational levels in the arab world are indisputable, has nothing to do with racism (especially considering our troops are of all races, and lead by a black man who is commander in cheif!) The facts are the facts, these are ignorant and uneducated people. You can try to make it a racism issue all you like, that doesn't change the facts that the people in afghanistan have an 8 y/o's educational level.

Second time something like this has happened isn't it? Foam pie-gate and now this..

It's almost like they want it to happen

all dictators are not equal. You have a very black or white mentality. Each country and culture and dictator is unique.

I think you massively over-reacted (as did we). 3000 dead on 9/11 haven't been brought back to life because of our invasions, you've lost more people.

The correct approach would have been Obama's policy of planning raids on specific targets, not just full on invasion. It just doesn't make any sense at all.

The fact you say most Americans would be happy to nuke the middle east, just confirms what we already knew about most Americans. If you have a couple of mice in your house, you don't blow your whole house up.......just to be sure.

And we've improved things for them, by forcing Afghans to choose between the Taleban and the corrupt Karzai government?

you do realize how hypocritical you seem right? one minute you are complaining about the coalition/NATO invading countries controlled by dictators, and the next minute you are talking about how we should invade all of the other countries controlled by dictators? Ridiculing leaders for posing with dictators when they are trying to make diplomatic peaceful changes??

So which is it? If Hillary Clinton goes to Cuba and hugs a Castro, will you praise her for trying to be diplomatic? or condemn her for supporting a fascist dictatorship?

You seem to pick and choose who you praise and condemn based only on yur own political agenda against the Western leaders.

Aka, anything a western leader does = bad.

Another major problem, is that it's obviously a religious issue for fundamentalist Muslims. That needs to change from within, and when we go round bombing the **** out of them, we force them to become more insular, and even less likely to be open to change.

The Islamic world needs to go through an enlightenment period, but we've made it almost impossible in these countries.

it's not religious, it's idealogical, just as nazism was idealogical.

Handled well

No I don't want us to invade any countries, just pointing out Western hypocrisy ;)

In fact if you read any of my posts from the Libya conflict I was against NATO intervention

The parallels between Nazism and a religion are there for all to see.

you can be for or against anything you like, it doesn't matter, because you arn't responsible for anyone's wellbeing.

all religions are just idealogy.

America has already proven successful against other ideologies.... we defeated Nazism and Marxism(communism), we can defeat militant islam as well. The cold war lasted 40 years.

didn't britain once fight a 100 year war? patience is a virtue.

Before:

http://www.startrek.com/legacy_media...ew/320x240.jpg


and After:

http://socket79.webs.com/j7.jpg

Communism ran out of money (the people from within were a major component for change), and Nazism was was defeated with force. It's impossible to wait out religious fundamentalism. The whole premise is flawed. Every victory for them, becomes a sign from god, every defeat for them becomes a warning from god. You don't change someones mind like that.

The Islamic faith is at the equivalent point in it's history, to 14th century Christians. What changed Christianity, was a changing of ideas, and that's how you change Islam into a relatively harmless religion like Christianity. There are no Christians that are anything like Christ, but it's been watered down. The flow of ideas, is what changes peoples views, not attacks.

America wasn't alone in defeating Nazism, despite what Hollywood may try to portray. And when America finally decided to join in the fight in Europe to defeat the nazis, Europe was helping the US defeat the Japanese in the Far East. Just sayin'...

And I fail to see how American can claim any credit for defeating communism.

I personally believe that no matter who was the UK Prime Minister at the time,they would have supported the USA in the invasion of Iraq, I do think Tony Blair may have things to answer for, however I don't think the outcome would have been any different no matter who was in power.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator,he did cause the deaths of vast sections of his people however I agree with Jesus H Christ on this issue in the main.
He has said most of what I would have on the subject and I totally agree with his satement as to the moral standard of Western leaders where they are very selective as to where they allow us to get involved in as to Nations with dictatorships who cause misery to their citizens.

As Jesus H Christ commented, either get involved in all those situations or none at all.Stop the double standards.

That's not true :nono: Have you ever seen that documentary, Inglorious Bastards? :pipe:

LMAO @ europe helping America defeat the Japanese., you must be joking right?

and an equal hardy laugh at you not seeing how America defeated communism. If it wasn't for America you'd be speaking Russian right now.

The only reason russia stopped where they did is because of America. We could have scrapped the whole Marshall plan and just allowed you to become another Soviet Republic, you don't know that??? SERIOUSLY?

What are they teaching in british schools these days?

Unlike Russia, America was not planting flags the whole way. every place the russians liberated from the nazi's in ww2, they also planted a giant russian flag and assimilated them into the collective of soviet states. If it wasn't for America you would have suffered the same fate,. you would also have been assimilated into the collective of soviet states. You would be borg.

Well I've heard the "you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for us" one, but that we'd be speaking Russian now is news to me

well, if America had not gotten involved, and we'd left it to the Russian to liberate you and we only focused on the pacific war, yes, you'd be a soviet republic. go ask the polish or the ukranians. I'm sure they would have prefered to have been liberated from the Nazi's by America rather than Russia. Or just ask the east germans about the difference.

Oh dear.