Tony thinking he's doing the right thing

[Blair] did what he thought was right for his country, bless him. Big deal. So did Joe Stalin. So did Neville Chamberlain. So did John Wilkes Booth. Sincerity is no excuse. The world is full of people doing what they feel is right, which is why we judge on consequence not intent. Guess what? Every bankrupt business really believed in the product. Every referee that pointed to the penalty spot was absolutely convinced there had been a foul. And every leader that committed his country to a bloody and disastrous war was convinced of the opposite outcome.

From Martin Samuel in the Times, well worth also reading for his comparison of Blair with a sheepshagger

Comments

[joe90]

All Hitler wanted was peace.

The Soviet Union had the best written constitution in the world.

The World Bank was invented to reduce world poverty (now that is satire!).

Nazis on trial at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal were only following their orders.

The Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it its full pompous title) can commit the worst crime that it's possible for a human being to commit ie 'unprovoked aggression' (against Iraq) - but if you refuse to follow your orders, and instead, follow your own conscience, then you get put in jail for trying to prevent the same crime Hitler was guilty of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2077234,00.html>Gagging order as two are jailed for leaking Blair-Bush memo
Grundian
11 May 2007

What was the defence of Hitler's henchmen at Nuremberg again ?
Yes, that's right - they claimed they were only following orders.

When it comes to the New Labour regime - you are required to follow your orders and participate to the full in Tony Blair's Hitlerian foreign policy, or you go to jail.

Tony believed that what he done was right, so he even admits his crimes, but doesn't go to jail. Only those who tried to stop him, when given the opportunity to do so, are now in the pokey.

I can't help feeling that this will only encourage future British leaders to indulge in their own little racist mass-murder sprees abroad., knowing the British law is going to protect them while they go about theior filthy buisness.

I particularly enjoyed this little window onto the morality of our glorious leaders, given as a defence mind you! -
In evidence at the trial, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the prime minister's top foreign policy adviser, said private talks between world leaders must remain confidential however illegal or morally abhorrent aspects of their discussions might be.

Makes you feel proud to British and part of Great Britian, still!

[joe90]

Here is Craig Murray doing his bit to get himself put behind bars, again -
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/05/official_secret.html#comments>Official Secrets Act Convictions
12 May 12 2007

all the best!

[Thersites]

Isn't it a frequent claim of muslims that people will be judged by their intentions, however?

[Ted]

I think it was a nonsense thing to say. Only his most demented critics believe he intentionally went in to Iraq to create the mess that has transpired, surely.

What it might be is a code for 'I really can't be bothered arguing about this anymore, I did what I thought what was right and that's the end of it' which I think is a more accurate view of his thinking. Whether you supported the war or you didn't, you're not going to change your opinion now so there's no arguing left to be done. I don't think he wants to spend the rest of his life arguing the merits of the Iraq invasion basically.

[Osama]

Thersites, and Tony did do it for God too! In all seriousness though, while intention matters in Islam, it is rendered irrelevant if the action itself was illegitimate. You can't murder hundreds and thousands of people and say you had the best of intentions.

You can repent though, which we are still waiting for Tony to do.

[joe90]

I love Ted and his oracular gifts of hindsight

Only his most demented critics believe he intentionally went in to Iraq to create the mess that has transpired
- you're right there Ted.
Tony Blair and the British New Labour Party attacked defenceless, innocent Iraq for the noblest of intentions, with a pure heart and for the good of us all. Their child-like innocent, devoid of all human experience when it comes to the West's record of attacking defenceless Third World countries, almost brings a tear to the eye - why turn Tony the Messiah into a villian, when he is actually the victim and a Martyr!

I don't know if you can remember this far back Ted, because I know you have a certain personal cut-off point where the facts of history are no longer relevent -
- but the lies given by Tony Blair, the butcher of Beruit, Baghram and Baghdad, was that Iraq had WMD and "links to Al Quaeda" (the last is a massmedia news mantra we should all be able to repeat in our sleep by now, it's said that often).

We know these are lies because neither the UK government or the US government believed Iraq had any WMD just one year before they attacked it. How things can change in a year, but that's a matter for the historical record, and therefeore, irrelevent in Ted-Land.

The lies today, in order to continue the bloodbath that has cost the UK $7 billion and the US $350 billion so far, is that the noble US and UK attacked and invaded Iraq to promote democracy and mom's apple pie.

Of course,
one of the real reasons Iraq was attacked by the noble butchers of the west was that it was completely defenceless - I mean, you don't think cowards like Bush and Blair would attack anybody whom they thought could fight back, do you?

Although I quite agree Ted,
let's forget all about the much, much lesser crimes of 7-7 and 11-9, which completely pale into comparison compared to our own crimes.

I don't think he wants to spend the rest of his life arguing the merits of the Iraq invasion basically.
- I am sure that, just like your vision of the martyr Tony, bin Laden feels the same way.

And opinion polls show that people did change and have changed their minds, regarding the crimes perpetrated by their glorious western leaders against defenceless Third World People Ted - so there is every point in holding our democratically elected leaders to account for the war crimes they carry out in our name.

In fact, this is actually a fundamental characteristic of a functioning democracy - something Tony and George claim they are trying to bring to backward Aghanis and Iraqis. That would be weird, wouldn't it - if at they end of the day, Afghanistan and Iraq ended up with functioning democracies, but the UK and the US ended up with Hitler-style dictatorships with leaders carrying out unprovoked aggression against whomever they pleased, and their general public unable to do anything about it!

What a topsy-turvy world Ted-land is!

[Osama]

Ted, I think you're very charitable on Mr Blair. The neocon project wanted to go into Iraq as long as a decade ago. This was for their own strategic interests, and certainly not for the Iraqi people. They were warned repeatedly that there would be chaos, and not just from the antiwar movement.

They callously disregarded that assessment. They knew it would happen and they made it happen. Whether or not it was their primary goal is beside the point, because they knew the results but they did it anyway.

[Thersites]

It's an interesting question, Osama: if TB did have the best of intentions and sees no need to repent, what's his fate? Is stupidity a defence in divine law?
The really worrying thing, Joe90, is that the most sensible explanation for the invasion of Iraq is that Bush and Blair persuaded themselves of the nonsense they spoke. If they'd acted from the machiavellian motives ascribed they already had a murderous and bribable thug perfectly able to control Iraq in Saddam Hussein. If Ghadaffy's repentance could be accepted as part of the "War on Terror" so could Saddam's.

[joe90]

From the British Government Propaganda Service, the BBC -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6667833.stm>Bush and Blair's affair to remember
May 17 2007
What was most striking was that right until the bitter end there was no sense of regret on the one decision that has cost them so dear: Iraq....

....The US president conceded that "it could be" that the decision ultimately led to Mr Blair's early departure. But it was all academic - Mr Blair said he would do it all again.

Takes the breath away!

This shows we need a system of international humanitarian law to put these butchers behind bars, as a deterrent - rather than paying them a big fat pension for the rest of their miserable life, as an incentive!

Thanks for that Thersite.
Clearly, Saddam and his terrible regime was not the reason Iraq was invaded - the excuse of 'democracy building' was just one in a long line of fabrication used to justify the US-UK attack.

The thing is Thersites, you are going to have to decide which Blair lies to believe, in the never ending list of pretext he gave to justify his attacking Iraq. Once one pretext was shown to be untrue he just used another. This isn't nonsense. His was a deliberate and willful campaign to mislead the public. Blair can't string two sentences together without one of them, at least, being a lie.

One of the main reasons Iraq was attacked, was to physically establish a direct US presence right in the heart of the world's most important energy resource, Middle East oil.
The US Baghdad 'Embassy' is nearly complete, and US Military Enduring Bases in Iraq have already been up and running for some time - these are vast expensive complexes and indicates the real reasons the US is in Iraq. The US has no intention of leaving if it can possibly help it.

There are all sorts of other reasons as to why Iraq, and why now at this point in recent history the US attacked it.

Well, for starters, the US no longer has any other rival military superpower, so it has carte-blance to do as it chooses in the international arena, which is summed up in the new Bush doctrine of 'preventative' intervention - not 'pre-emptive' which is the excuse used by the US to attack Iraq at first, in order to prevent Saddam using all the ghastly WMD he didn't have.

'Preventative' intervention means the US can attack whomever it pleases, for whatever reason it cares to choose, real or imagined - the same as Hitler. Even if you think someone is threat, then that is a good enough justification for attacking someone.

Iraq was picked as an example to illustrate to the rest of the world this new US doctrine of 'Preventative War' because it was completely defenceless and also it had something worth invading it for - vast oil reserves. US control of access to oil reserves would mean it would have huge advantages over its main real rivals in the world, namely Europe and the Far Eastern Japan-China led economies.

All the best mate!

[joe90]

Chairmain Mao Zebrown,
recently photographed during a visit to my own local Labourite Soviet Olgarchy Of North Lanarkshire -
http://impossiblist.blogspot.com/2007/05/brown-zedong.html>Brown Zedong

I've no idea who the guy in the colour photo at the top of this blog article is though!

[joe90]

In case you missed them,
as Chairman Mao ZeBrown has now removed all evidence of a challange to his glorious leadership from the Old-New-Borrowed-Blue Labour Party website,
here is a list of the MP's foolish enough to support John McDonnell's leadership bid
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1179425995.html>The last Labour gang in town.

Regarding another election,
it isn't until your reach the bottom of this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6669073.stm>President allies win Algeria poll
by the British Government Propaganda Service, the BBC, that the actual truth comes out regarding western support for Algerian democracy -

The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which used to have massive popular support, was banned in 1992 when it was poised to win a general election and has not been allowed back into the political fold.

Our reporter says that without the group's participation, power will remain where it has done with the president and the military.

Yes that's right,
Algerian democracy was destroyed by the West in 1992 and a violent totalitarian US military puppet regime installed once it was realised Algerians had voted for who they preferred rather than those The Great White Father in His House in Washington supported.

Much like Palestinians who have to be punished for voting in free and fair democratic elections for the candidates of their choice, rather than the Quisling Palestinian Puppets preferred by US-Israel willing to do their dirty work for them, against their own People.

Building democracy in Iraq anyone? Tony would do it all again to his Iraqi victims, if he had the chance! Another million slaughtered, millions injured, as well as terrorised, starved etc etc

[joe90]

Tony's next job?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23396863-details/Blair+tipped+to+be+World+Bank+president+as+disgraced+Wolfowitz+resigns/article.do>Blair tipped to be World Bank president as disgraced Wolfowitz resigns

Fighting to reduce poverty amongst the billionaires of the world - this will be after he picks up his Nobel Peace Prize, of course!

This would be really hilarious if it wasn't for facts such as these - here are some of Wolfie's latest victims -
The children of Al Hadidiya live here no more
15 May 2007
by Daphne Banai of The ISM

Dispossessed occupied Palestinians under economic siege because the voted for the wrong politicians - the only People in history to be subjected to an illegal economic boycott whilst under an illegal military occupation cum genocide.

[joe90]

I have just been reading the -
http://www.scottishleftreview.org/index.php?action=article&docid=368>editorial comment - who won the election
- in the latest edition of the
Scottish Left Review: Issue 40 May/June 2007
which is dedicated to the recent election results.

I agree with it that lots of decent people knew there was a chance to make a difference by voting for the SNP. However, it doesn't once mention New Labour racism or British imperialism abroad - quite extra-ordinary myopic analysis when it comes to Scottish voters' motivations recently!

The SLR editorial seem to think Scots are detached from the rest of the world just because we share a land border with England. Scottish voters knew that voting SNP was a decent and humane thing to do, given the vast bloodbaths that the British Labour-Cons are responsible for in recent years!

Just because the recent elections were about the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Local Government, doesn't mean we don't care about the rest of the world and what the British government is doing to its defenceless victims in our name!

And how about this utterly naive wish-fulfillment (3rd paragrpah from the end - notice also the over-use of brackets in the piece)
This election should provide Labour with an opportunity to rediscover itself in Scotland

A conference is being organised by the SLR, and the venue (tbc) is the STUC conference rooms - yet they claim to be left-wing etc etc!

[joe90]

Here's who we voted to help - victims of the British Labour-Cons who support the corrupt racist Israeli regime -

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/05/21/in-the-belly-of-the-wailing-democracy-called-israel/>In the belly of the wailing “democracy” called Israel
ISM
May 21 2007

[Ted]

"Whether or not it was their primary goal is beside the point, because they knew the results but they did it anyway."

I don't think the primary goal is beside the point if Blair is saying he did what he thought was right. In his view, his primary goal - to remove Saddam Hussein and allow the election of a new government - was the right thing to do. The fact that it's a complete shambles doesn't negate his view that he considered his primary goal to be correct. As I said, it's a nonsense thing to say as it's fairly obvious, or should be, that he didn't do what he thought was wrong. It would be more of a surprise if he said that.

Another one he's used recently is 'God will judge me' which is another shorthand for 'I won't be answering questions on this in future'. They are weary statements intended to indicate his desire to draw a line under the whole issue. But I don't think it will.

[joe90]

From JSF -
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2007/05/brits-get-up-very-early-in-morning-to.html>Brits get up very early in the morning to catch Israel out
22 May 2007

I wonder if Tony Blair will take time out from his Flying Circus, and his highly unique resignation and justification tour, to add his name to it - maybe even my own MP Frank Roy, ex-steelworker and Man of the People, might add his own personal thunder to it!

JSF also has a link to this quiz -
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2007/05/know-your-palestinian-refugees.html>Know your Palestinian refugees!
I got 65% but there were mitigating circumstances - see JSF comments for further details.

All the best!

ps
Under your sterling example Osama and because of the recent Scottish election results I might set up me own blog on wordpress.com - I've already got my own account now!

[joe90]

Tony the Messiah, soon to be Martyr, and his record on supporting violent abusive governments for the past 10 years -

http://ukwatch.net/article/ten_years_of_new_labour_s_arms_exports>Ten Years of New Labour’s Arms Exports
24 May 2007
Mark Curtis
ukwatch.net

Amnesty International release there Annual Report for 2007 today
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Download%20the%20Report>Amnesty International Report 2007

Unless you know what you are doing, you won't be able to downlaod the Report as PDF files, because someone has forgot to add the .pdf suffix to the file names -
- try adding the .pdf suffix yourself manually when the Save as dialogue box comes up, making sure your PC doesn't then save it as a .html file anyway.

And rename the 4 pdf files with their actual AI titles.

all the best!

[Osama]

Well I'm on the Editorial Board for the SLR so I'll pass your comments on Joe!

[Osama]

Ted, as someone else said a decade ago, Blair felt 655,000 dead was "the price worth paying".

[joe90]

Sorry Ted
but you're just making it up now - by that I mean you believe the usual western massmedia rubbish about how noble we in the west are. Sure people can make mistakes, after all Tony is only human!

Let's not bother with our crimes and the huge bloodbath's the British voters and taxpayers are responsible for and pays for - let's move on! If only Saddam or even Hitler was extended the same sympathy. We're so forgiving when it comes to our own crimes - how narcissistic, corrupt and immoral can you get!

We're the mafia and we don't care!

US-UK attacked defenceless innocent Iraq becuase of WMD, not because of democracy-building and all that twaddle that came later once they couldn't find any Iraqi WMD.

The specific issue was illegal Iraqi WMD and alleged Iraq non-cooperation with weapons inspection.

Remember Blair's dodgy dossier or Colin Powell's lecture to the UN holding bottles holding white powder to illustrate his lies to the rest of the world?

The US-UK attack was illegal and the British government knew that - why else go to all the trouble to try to secure UN authorisation for an invasion?

Tony Blair and the British government knew it was breaking the law in attacking Iraq.

Ted which government, in the whole history of mankind, has ever said that what it was going to do was something really bad, and it was because they knew it was a bad thing to do they were going to do it - name me just one?

There is none!

Even Hitler had plenty of good reasons for doing what he done. No political leader will ever admit to deliberately committing moral wrong, unless coerced to do so
ie they are put on trial for their crimes.

You will search through the western mainstream media in vain looking for journalist reports and articles stating that western governments, especially the US and the UK, are involved in a 'war process' or are involved in 'destroying democracy' abroad. You will find such reports nowhere, despite all the overwhelming evidence that proves them true. This is the western propaganda system in action - which is even more efficient and monolithic than eiether Stalin's or Goebbel's.

As well as that,
which person even has ever said that they have wholeheartedly behaved in a way they knew was completely bad and evil, without exception and without reservation?
People will generally try to excuse their behaviour, regardless of how pathetic and pitiful they might sound to others. This is a psychological device people use to protect themselves from themselves - human self-preservation is not just physical but mental as well. Everybody thinks they are 'good' people, it's just circumstances and others ('other people are hell' - Jean-Paul Sartre) that force them to behave otherwise.

However,
in my experience Ted, all you'll do is just repeat your statement taking no notice of the fact it's just been disproved.

ps
Osama
sorry if I sounded a bit hard on that SLR editorial - but there was a wider concern as to why Scottish voters think the SNP is a basically decent humane political party.

[joe90]

From the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6685279.stm>Salmond compared to Hitler by MP
23 May 2007

From a British Labour-con, who is responsible for the same crime as Hitler - and who is also responsible for a race-hate campaign at home against honest decent British Muslim folk.

Tony isn't compared to Hitler but somebody who tried to stop him is - welcome to George Orwell's world where war is 'democracy building', and starving numberless amounts of children to death is peace and freedom!

Is it just me or are these Labour-con women even worse than their male counterparts?

After all, it was Madeliene Albright the US Ambassador to the UN at the time, who in 1997 on the US current affairs programme '60 Minutes' said it was 'worth it' that the US-UK Sanctions regime had caused the deaths (ie the infant genocide) of 500,000 Iraqi children under 5 years of age to death bewteen 1991-1996. According to George Galloway, giving evidence in front of a US Senate Committee, Madeliene's victims were too young to know they were even Iraqi.

How brave Bush I, Bush II and Blair are to make such tough decisions against such an axis of evil - to attack and murder defenceless bairns!

Makes me feel proud to be British!

[joe90]

I didn't notice it
but someone has just informed me that the image used by the BBC, in their article on the Labour-cons comparing Alex Salmond with Hitler, shows Alex seemingly making a Nazi salute (or the 'German salute' as the nazis liked to call it)!

Here it is again -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6685279.stm>Salmond compared to Hitler by MP

All the best from an almost Labour-Free Scotland!

ps
I see the Lib-Dems have put the Labour-cons back in power in Stirling Council.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6686967.stm>Labour to retain Stirling council

[joe90]

From ZMag.org archive -
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm>Sanctions, Genocide and War Crimes:
A Paper Presented to The International Law Association on 29 February 2000 by Shuna Lennon LLB (Hons)

Paragraph 11 is worth quoting in full -

[start]
11. It should perhaps be recalled here that, on 12 May 1996, [Madeleine] Albright was interviewed for CBS by Leslie Stahl, who asked
“We have heard that a half million children have died [in Iraq, as a result of the sanctions]...I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?”
Her response was
“I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”
At that time, Albright was prepared to acknowledge that the blockade/sanctions regime was causing the deaths. It appears that she now asserts that the sanctions are not causing any deaths.
[end]

In true western fashion,
Madeliene Albright, former US Ambassador to the UN and US Secretary of State, later lied when she was asked if she had said any such thing, she denied it - apart from the fact it was broadcast across America on TV and is permanently recorded on videotape etc

Madeleines quotation from Paragraph 10 is also worth quoting -
We do not agree with those nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted …..”

So, regardless of the actions of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi People were going to be punished anyway, by the US and UK - so whether Iraq had any WMD or not, made no difference to the application of genocidal sanctions against the Iraqi People.

Anyway,
here is footage of Madeleine cold-bloodedly agreeing that infant genocide is a worthy pursiut for western governments to be involved in -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8>madeleine albright on 60 minutes - "worth it"
YouTube.com