Well Done the Irish trying to arrest Blair for War Crimes
 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...02_634x408.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...50_634x570.jpg


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...29_634x369.jpg
Shoes and eggs were thrown by anti-war protesters as Mr Blair arrived at the store

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0yZGhJOR8


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...76_306x616.jpg
Evil Blair the War Criminal.


Sign Of The Times.

Why were they rioting?

I saw it on the news before

Blair going to Book Stores for his book,
so many young Irish students and the like
wanted to Arrest Blair for War Crimes.
Katie O' Sullivan spoke on SkyNews

The Falsehood he used
to Illegally Invade Iraq.

Oh ok, wasn't very good weather to protest in was it

Thats why I say well done the Irish
who can stand Firm on the War Crime Issue.

This is on Worldwide News

The funny thing is if Ireland did arrest him, most people in his home country would be quite pleased.

God, what morons. What are they achieving here exactly? By all means protest peacefully, but dont go around throwing eggs and bottles and cause conflicts with the police.

Apparently, the Blair supporters there outnumbered the protestors 3 to 1, I always thought he would be quite popular in Ireland because of what he did for the peace process? One of the groups protesting was the 32 County Soveriegn Movement which says a lot tbh.

I like Blair:(

I can't believe he still has supporters/apologists. How can this be possible?

Such a shame that a nice man like him is culpable and complicit in the deaths of up to a million Iraqis. That's 5 times as many as Saddam was supposed to have done away with.

He only appears nice, I suppose that's why voters forgave him for his faults. Nice people don't lie like he does and they certainly don't survive in the world of politics.

Physically I can not stand him.

Does he think 5 million pounds would buy people's respect?

His book should be moved to under fiction section.

Watching Blair's interview on Ireland's major talk show from last night online now. Interesting stuff.

How much money has this pleb made since leaving Downing Street? It's sickening really.

Like our chat show host keeps repeating, "the weapons weren't there!". And he still can't accept that fact.

That's the full interview that took place on Friday. It's pretty good stuff.

He said Saddam had nerve gas and used it. I'd like that issue to be teased out fully and tested for truth. I've read that Halabja was the site of a battle in the Iran Iraq war, and that both Iraqi and Iranian troops occupied it, and I have read that it was actually the Iranians who used the nerve gas believing (wrongly) the Iraqis were hold-up there.

It is crucial to Blair's defence of his actions.

Read the UN Weapon Insprectors reports, Saddam did have Nerve gas, both non persistant and persistant,(GA, GB, Thickened GD) the Americans could say for a certainty, they sold him it, we sold him equipment to convert some of his industrial plants into weapons facilities.

Just prior to the US led invasion the latest UN reports from the weapons and disposal teams, just before they were withdrawn for non co-operation, were saying Iraq probably doesnt have most of the chemical and biological agents they were assumed to have, however there was insufficient evidence to confirm its disposal.


Incidentally not only did he have Nerve Agents, he also had other lethal agents like phosgene, chlorine etc and damaging agents like Mustard etc

I did read that a US survey team on the ground after the attack in 1988 concluded that the type of biological/chemical weapons used were of Iranian origin. It's not something easily found with Google though.

"Iran overran the village and its small Iraqi garrison on 15 March 1988. The gassing took place on 16 March and onwards; who is then responsible for the deaths - Iran or Iraq - and how large was the death toll knowing the Iranian army was in Halabja but never reported any deaths by chemicals?

The best evidence to answer this is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...ext=va&aid=330

Did any of you watch the interview?

It's too long, watched 5 mins from 20 - 25.

Best evidence my wrinkled pooper. That report was discredited and believed to have been heavily doctored by the CIA, at the time diplomatic relations between the US and Iran werent too good were they? Because of that that and because of his pro western sympathies at the time Iraq was a US ally.

Interestingly enough the chemical agents used at the time were not actually identified, however it is believed to have been combinations of agents, as some casualties demonstrated symptoms of Nerve Agent poisonning while other exhibited signs of Blood Agent poisoning. Symptoms of Mustard(a damaging rather than lethal agent) were also found.

The town of Halabja had previous to the chemical attack been liberated by a joint Iranian/Kurdish force, why would the Iranians then attack it?

Why would the government of Iraq accept it was an act of genocide committed by Saddam Hussein?

They presented various validated documents from Saddam to others enquiring about combination attacks etc. Even Saddam admitted authorising the attack during his trial.

The Iraq govt. that owned up to it did so in 2010. That's a puppet Iraq govt, no?

Be interesting to know when the report originally surfaced. Was it just prior to the first gulf war?

Did you rerad the rest of the article, btw? Halabja was a battle in the Iran-Iraq war, not some isolated incident of genocide like it's portrayed. It says Iraq used mustard gas and Iran more deadly gases. I've read the Iranians and Iraqis were shifting in and out of the town as the battle line shifted, and when the Iranians bombed it, they mistakenly believed the Iraqis were holding it.

Okay so you decided the Iraqi government willingly admitted to the atrocities committed by Saddam and co because they are a puppet government. Off one discredited CIA produced report and you have discounted numerous other documents that have since been produced not only by the US and UK, but also Russia and even independant unbiaised investigations.

Thats fine however you havent addressed the corroborated evidence produced at the trial of Saddam Hussein relating to the attack at Halabja, nor have you addressed Saddams own evidence admitting issuing orders regarding the attack.

On the same lines how do you address the evidence against Ali Hassan al-Majid? (Chemical Ali) This evidence was not only again corroborated documents and witness statements but also what was in effect a confession that he ordered the attacks after being told to deal with the situation by Hussein?

What about former defense minister Sultan Hashem, who was also found guilty by The Iraqi High Tribunal for his part in the Halabja attack.

All show trials no doubt in your eyes, but wouldnt that undermine the role of the US in the invasion and subsequent peacekeeping operations if it ever came to light? And lets face it, thats a hell of a lot of people to keep sweet in that conspiracy of yours.

What about the eyewitness statement by people who would know where the shells were coming from and the nationality of the aircraft dropping the ordnance, namely the Kurds themselves? Or have they been got at too?

Incidentally Iraq used Nerve agents, they had bought initial stocks from the US then started producing their own. The Iranian's did have Hydrogen Cyanide (Blood Agent - AC), though not in significant quantities to deliver the sustained attack that occurred, however there was never traces of AC found, this could be due to its volatility.

The belief that blood agent had been used was because of the evidence of witnesses, claiming the victims had a blue tinge to their skin and they died in convulsions, the fact that these are also symptoms of death by nerve agent was totally ignored by the CIA/NSA.

One other point, the attack started on the night of the 16th, continuing till the 18th, however the town was declared to have fallen to the Iranian/Kurdish forces on the 15th,(in both Iraqi and Iranian records) if it was as you claim it to be a fog of war incident, dont you think someone on the Iranian side would have stopped the attack well before the full 36 hours that the attack actually lasted?

Great memory, intimate knowledge, or Google?