Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

" width="8" height="8"/> Ryan and Teiresias Debate New Labour
Outline · Standard · [ Linear+ ]
Teiresias
post Sep 30 2005, 10:53 AM
Post #1


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



QUOTE
Ah, no need to fret, I've already explained I'm a supporter of New Labour.


If anyone is confused over what that actually means, its that he's one of those guys that has an 84 year old jewish peace activist who came to Britain fleeing the Nazi's, manhandled out of the Labour conference and held under the anti-terror laws for shouting "Nonsense" during Jack Straws "Isn't everything dandy in Iraq" speech.

In other words a paranoid control freak, with so little self-esteem and such a deeply rooted inferiority complex, that he's completely incapable of accepting any criticisms to any of his idea's and all of this under the umbrella of a morality that is based purely on praticality.

Incidently Liam what exactly is a Leftist, judging by the people that use the term so regularly (namely yourself) I'm beginning to take it to mean, anybody that allies himself with any force against the humiliation of humankind. In short its become one of those terms that says much more about the person that uses it than the person its aimed at.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

Replies(1 - 19)
Ryan_Liam
post Sep 30 2005, 04:49 PM
Post #2


I need a freakin life
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,586
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE
RL-big government is not inherently bad. Big government without accountability is.


Which is one of the effects of Big Government.

QUOTE
If anyone is confused over what that actually means, its that he's one of those guys that has an 84 year old jewish peace activist who came to Britain fleeing the Nazi's, manhandled out of the Labour conference and held under the anti-terror laws for shouting "Nonsense" during Jack Straws "Isn't everything dandy in Iraq" speech.


Which the New Labour Party apologised for, even the PM and all of his cabinet, and the Secretary of the Party, it is known that the 84 yr old has now accepted the apology.

QUOTE
In other words a paranoid control freak, with so little self-esteem and such a deeply rooted inferiority complex, that he's completely incapable of accepting any criticisms to any of his idea's and all of this under the umbrella of a morality that is based purely on praticality.


Oh and add the most stable and successful economy in Western Europe. Tony Blair faces barrages of criticism as it's normal in the UK to confront the PM and ask him awkward questions. So how about, looking at UK politics before you make you're completely retarded assumptions on how the government and what the PM does.

QUOTE
Incidently Liam what exactly is a Leftist, judging by the people that use the term so regularly (namely yourself) I'm beginning to take it to mean, anybody that allies himself with any force against the humiliation of humankind. In short its become one of those terms that says much more about the person that uses it than the person its aimed at.


A leftist is a person who pretty much wants to return to the bad old days of British Labour government, in the UK in the 70's there were incessant strikes and protests and ineffectual government, which in turn culminated in Jim Callaghan in asking for a loan from the IMF, it was one of the very very worst times in British political and economic history, it took the Labour party 17 years to get back into power because of it. So the Labour Party has returned to good form to a centrist policy.

So yes, I know what I'm talking about when using the term leftist, on the foreign policy situation, it pretty much anyone who seems to appease and identify the causes of Jihadists are down to bad Western policy or liberties. Also, leftist seem to identify anything the Governments of Europe and most notably the USA do as inheirently bad.

Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Sep 30 2005, 07:57 PM
Post #3


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



QUOTE
Which the New Labour Party apologised for, even the PM and all of his cabinet, and the Secretary of the Party, it is known that the 84 yr old has now accepted the apology.


He also had a pretty convincing theory for why it happened.

QUOTE
Oh and add the most stable and successful economy in Western Europe. Tony Blair faces barrages of criticism as it's normal in the UK to confront the PM and ask him awkward questions. So how about, looking at UK politics before you make you're completely retarded assumptions on how the government and what the PM does.


I think we're back in "trains run on time" territory again. The fact is that everything is managed and spun. GCSE results are at a record high - yet they've been dumbed down to such a extent that they're barely recognisable from their original form. Meaning that A Levels are forced to follow suit - meaning that 1st year students are less prepared for the jump to university education. As for the Health service, when you have to send people abroad for treatment what greater damnation can there possibly be. Our great economy means that Teachers, Nurses and basically anyone who doesn't work in the private sector can't afford to buy a house, we have huge proportions of our population living under the poverty line - and between Westminster Bridge and Victoria last sunday I spotted approximately 50 homeless people sleeping in doorways. When I talk about New Labour not being able to take criticism, I'm not referring to Blair blushing when under fire during PM's question time, I'm talking about smear campaigns against civil servants, Labour Mp's that don't tow the line, basically anyone who embarasses new labour with a diffcult question, an opposing opinion, or a principled resignation. You either admire the Machievellian nature of the new labour party machine, or you simply don't understand it.

QUOTE
A leftist is a person who pretty much wants to return to the bad old days of British Labour government, in the UK in the 70's there were incessant strikes and protests and ineffectual government,


Really? Perhaps they also want an oil crisis - well one out of two ain't bad. Your obviously a rightist - someone who pines for the return of the good old days when you could drop chemical weapons on peasants, or supply arms and training to the Khymer Rouge under the auspices of stemming the tide of communism, or improving relations with China....what you rightists need is a new communism, something to really spread terror amongst your citizens, wait a minute...terror...terrorism, hey I think I might be on to something.

QUOTE
So yes, I know what I'm talking about when using the term leftist, on the foreign policy situation, it pretty much anyone who seems to appease and identify the causes of Jihadists are down to bad Western policy or liberties. Also, leftist seem to identify anything the Governments of Europe and most notably the USA do as inheirently bad.


I think you think you know what you're talking about. I don't know what a leftist is, and presumably I'm considered one of them, it seems to me to be one of those puerile stickers people like you put on people you don't agree with, in a similar way that the term fascist was previously used to describe anyone who didn't agree with Marx, or have a copy of the Little Red Book, or was a member of NOLS rather than the RCP. Its pretty much motivated by a need to attack the person, rather than address the issue raised - certainly while some members of this forum use it out of laziness, and general boredom with an idea or tactic, I don't beieve you're one of them. This I see as being at the core of New Labour, its all about style over content.

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Ryan_Liam
post Sep 30 2005, 09:15 PM
Post #4


I need a freakin life
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,586
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE
He also had a pretty convincing theory for why it happened.


Irrelevant, he still accepted the apology and still came to the next labour conference.

QUOTE
I think we're back in "trains run on time" territory again. The fact is that everything is managed and spun. GCSE results are at a record high - yet they've been dumbed down to such a extent that they're barely recognisable from their original form


Bollocks, it's been proven that that very notion itself has been spun.

QUOTE
. Meaning that A Levels are forced to follow suit - meaning that 1st year students are less prepared for the jump to university education.


Cite?

QUOTE
As for the Health service, when you have to send people abroad for treatment what greater damnation can there possibly be.


The NHS has had a marked recovery under New Labour due to massive public spending.

QUOTE
Our great economy means that Teachers, Nurses and basically anyone who doesn't work in the private sector can't afford to buy a house, we have huge proportions of our population living under the poverty line


Bullshit, even though the pay rises for them are above the inflation rate.

QUOTE
- and between Westminster Bridge and Victoria last sunday I spotted approximately 50 homeless people sleeping in doorways.


It's London, the biggest city in the UK with over 10 million inhabitants. Big fucking deal. Still doesn't mean that New Labour has been a disaster, and besides there would I bet have been lots more homeless under the Conservative government.

QUOTE
When I talk about New Labour not being able to take criticism, I'm not referring to Blair blushing when under fire during PM's question time, I'm talking about smear campaigns against civil servants, Labour Mp's that don't tow the line, basically anyone who embarasses new labour with a diffcult question, an opposing opinion, or a principled resignation.


It's a political party, that's what happens. Unless you like the fact George Galloway could dissent in the manner he did before he got expelled? Also about the supposed controlling nature? Why is it then that lots of backbenchers openly disagreed with the Iraq policy.

QUOTE
You either admire the Machievellian nature of the new labour party machine, or you simply don't understand it.


Or you over emphasise it.

QUOTE
Really? Perhaps they also want an oil crisis - well one out of two ain't bad. Your obviously a rightist - someone who pines for the return of the good old days when you could drop chemical weapons on peasants


??? Oh yeah, lets nuke Liverpool while we're at it.

QUOTE
, or supply arms and training to the Khymer Rouge under the auspices of stemming the tide of communism,


Don't need to when you can have them just clubbed to death.

QUOTE
or improving relations with China....what you rightists need is a new communism, something to really spread terror amongst your citizens, wait a minute...terror...terrorism, hey I think I might be on to something


Plenty of you leftists advocate improving relations with China, sorry but when the engine of the economys growth is up and coming China, you have to deal with it.

QUOTE
I think you think you know what you're talking about.


I think you're a complete tard who doesn't even understand the amount of disaster far leftist policies had on the UK.

QUOTE
I don't know what a leftist is, and presumably I'm considered one of them, it seems to me to be one of those puerile stickers people like you put on people you don't agree with


Wow, really? How about people on the opposite to me generally denying ad nauseum anything which is situated in reality? Like the enemy of Islamism we're opposing?

QUOTE
in a similar way that the term fascist was previously used to describe anyone who didn't agree with Marx, or have a copy of the Little Red Book, or was a member of NOLS rather than the RCP


Yep, no change there.

QUOTE
Its pretty much motivated by a need to attack the person, rather than address the issue raised - certainly while some members of this forum use it out of laziness, and general boredom with an idea or tactic, I don't beieve you're one of them. This I see as being at the core of New Labour, its all about style over content.


I don't think so, regardless of the amount of croynism and spin you tend to slap on New Labour, that political party has done alot more than the previous government of the Conservatives.



Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Oct 1 2005, 08:53 PM
Post #5


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



QUOTE
Irrelevant, he still accepted the apology and still came to the next labour conference.


He accepted the apology because an apology was warrented - he was being gracious. I might get in my car drunk and drive over the next door neighbours dog, sure I might apologise afterwards and the apology might be accepted (lets assume its not a popular dog) but that doesn't detract in anyway from the fact that I was wrong to drive drunk. Similarly, an apology for the extreme management tactics employed at a political conference, in no way render the incident irrelevant - at best all it suggests is that the "New" Labour leadership doesn't have the foresight to anticipate the consequences of its methods - which is perhaps even more troubling because not only don't they want anyone else to drive, they don't have a clue where they're going.

QUOTE
Bollocks, it's been proven that that very notion itself has been spun.


If GCSE's have not been dumbed down, and have indeed been proven not to be so, as you claim. Then you will have no difficulty in providing evidence of this.

QUOTE
The NHS has had a marked recovery under New Labour due to massive public spending.


The NHS has improved, marginally, though certainly it hasn't improved sufficiently for the massive public spending to be justified. In fact what the massive public spending suggests is massive wastage.

QUOTE
Still doesn't mean that New Labour has been a disaster, and besides there would I bet have been lots more homeless under the Conservative government.


Possibly, but that's hardly the point, you don't measure your success by the failures of others. "New" Labour has failed to address this problem, and as you cited how great our economy is, what possible justification can there be for mass homelessness.

QUOTE
It's a political party, that's what happens. Unless you like the fact George Galloway could dissent in the manner he did before he got expelled? Also about the supposed controlling nature? Why is it then that lots of backbenchers openly disagreed with the Iraq policy.


The back benchers rebelled because they had safety in numbers and the support of large numbers of their constituents. They were also led in the rebellion by major figures in the Labour party, and I'm not talking George Galloway here, I'm talking about the likes of Robin Cook. Their obsession with control is beyond dispute, unless of course your a raging sycophant, which clearly you are. They have run smear campaigns against fellow members of the labour party, they have politicised whitehall, they have packed the House of Lords with "Tony's Crony's", they have sought to undermine the independence of the BBC, they have subverted intelligence because it did not support their agenda, they have attempted to manipulate and handle the media in a manner that is unprecedented,they have misled the public,the media, the UN.Etc,etc...

QUOTE
Or you over emphasise it.


Second option then.

QUOTE
??? Oh yeah, lets nuke Liverpool while we're at it.


I don't understand why you write this. But I'm confident if "New" Labour created a reason to do this, then it would enjoy your full support.

QUOTE
Plenty of you leftists advocate improving relations with China, sorry but when the engine of the economys growth is up and coming China, you have to deal with it.


Plenty of you rightists advocate gassing the jews. If you are going to assume that everybody who doesn't agree with you, agree's with everybody who doesn't agree with you then you are either an idiot (tard if you prefer) or someone with a phenomenal degree of paranoia.

QUOTE
Wow, really? How about people on the opposite to me generally denying ad nauseum anything which is situated in reality?


(And you seek to give me lessons on New Labour!)
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Ryan_Liam
post Oct 2 2005, 10:00 PM
Post #6


I need a freakin life
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,586
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE
He accepted the apology because an apology was warrented - he was being gracious.


What's the problem in that? You want him to resign along with the whole government over a bodyguard issue? What more can he do than apologise, give him membership back, invite him back to the conference, apologise again, and have the Labour Party Chairman come meet him?

QUOTE
I might get in my car drunk and drive over the next door neighbours dog, sure I might apologise afterwards and the apology might be accepted (lets assume its not a popular dog) but that doesn't detract in anyway from the fact that I was wrong to drive drunk


Irrelevant, and by the way, it was an accident and misjudgement, the same applies to the man being dragged out.

QUOTE
Similarly, an apology for the extreme management tactics employed at a political conference, in no way render the incident irrelevant - at best all it suggests is that the "New" Labour leadership doesn't have the foresight to anticipate the consequences of its methods


Wow, like many political parties. Even though the bodyguards are contracted independently?

QUOTE
- which is perhaps even more troubling because not only don't they want anyone else to drive, they don't have a clue where they're going.


Scaremongering as usual.

QUOTE
If GCSE's have not been dumbed down, and have indeed been proven not to be so, as you claim. Then you will have no difficulty in providing evidence of this.


I'll presume you're English right? So on ITV there was a show where older generations were pitted against the GCSEs of today in which they actually found it harder to pass.

People just don't like to put credit where it's due, you know maybe the generation that preceeded the former actually got smarter? But then again you wouldn't believe this.

QUOTE
The NHS has improved, marginally, though certainly it hasn't improved sufficiently for the massive public spending to be justified. In fact what the massive public spending suggests is massive wastage.


Bollocks, do you even remember the Conservative era in which they pretty much ripped out the entire system and underfunded it to fuck?

QUOTE
Possibly, but that's hardly the point, you don't measure your success by the failures of others. "New" Labour has failed to address this problem, and as you cited how great our economy is, what possible justification can there be for mass homelessness.


All governments in the history of Humankind have failed to solve this problem. Irrelevant. As for one living in one of the poorest parts of the UK, I can honestly say they've made a difference.

QUOTE
The back benchers rebelled because they had safety in numbers and the support of large numbers of their constituents.


Irrelevant. They still were allowed the democratic right of forming their own opinion.

QUOTE
They were also led in the rebellion by major figures in the Labour party, and I'm not talking George Galloway here, I'm talking about the likes of Robin Cook.


Robin Cook who sold arms to Sierra Leone and Indonesia.

QUOTE
Their obsession with control is beyond dispute, unless of course your a raging sycophant, which clearly you are.


Do you even remember the years of the pre new labour movement? Party conferences were almost regulary heckled and shouted down. It's been toned down in order to appeal to middle income voters and pretty much middle England. The bodyguard incident was merely over enthusiastic, since it's not happened before and if it was the norm, we'd see plenty of protest and press coverage as we see now of the 86 yr old man.

QUOTE
They have run smear campaigns against fellow members of the labour party, they have politicised whitehall, they have packed the House of Lords with "Tony's Crony's",


The undemocratic former hereditary house of lords replaced by elected representatives?

QUOTE
they have sought to undermine the independence of the BBC, they have subverted intelligence because it did not support their agenda, they have attempted to manipulate and handle the media in a manner that is unprecedented,they have misled the public,the media, the UN.Etc,etc...


All according to your perception, but the fact is, we've had it good under New Labour, and you're just bitching.

QUOTE
I don't understand why you write this. But I'm confident if "New" Labour created a reason to do this, then it would enjoy your full support.


You seem to think so much about my agenda, where in which I only support things such as Iraq and Afghanistan because regardless of the reasons in which we got there, we are now responsible for that area and we have to help them transistion to Democratic governance.

QUOTE
Plenty of you rightists advocate gassing the jews


I've defended Jews on here, but then again, I guess that saying is pretty irrelevant, it's probably the same to you as someone saying 'One of my best friends is black'

QUOTE
If you are going to assume that everybody who doesn't agree with you, agree's with everybody who doesn't agree with you then you are either an idiot (tard if you prefer) or someone with a phenomenal degree of paranoia.


You're going to tell me that the likes of Lowell Gnuneo and KreeL are respectable members of the Left? Get your fucking act together. And being told that the terrorists plaguing Iraq are somehow not a problem, and where the Left actively campaigns for them rather than supporting their brothers in arms (you know the Kurds for one) is just hypocritical on the highest level.

QUOTE
(And you seek to give me lessons on New Labour!)


Yep.



This post has been edited by Ryan_Liam: Oct 2 2005, 10:13 PM
Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Oct 3 2005, 12:25 PM
Post #7


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



QUOTE
What's the problem in that? You want him to resign along with the whole government over a bodyguard issue? What more can he do than apologise, give him membership back, invite him back to the conference, apologise again, and have the Labour Party Chairman come meet him?


The problem with that is that it wasn't an isolated issue. Over 600 people were questioned by police using the anti-terror laws. Many delegates had their motion papers confiscated by police - motion papers - that were blank on the opposing side and could be written on. Think TV camera's and anti-war slogans - now think freedom of speech. They apologised because media coverage forced their hand. They antipated incidents but didn't care - what they didn't count on was that the media would latch onto an incident involving a 84 year old peace protester and former labour candidate for parliament that had fled to Britain from Nazi Germany. Of course they apologised, they were wrong to create a climate where it could happen. I wonder if they would have apologised if it had not captured the imagination of the media.

QUOTE
Irrelevant, and by the way, it was an accident and misjudgement, the same applies to the man being dragged out.


Really, how was it an accident? The man was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Just like in Nazi Germany when he was a Jew, now in New Labours Britain for his opinions?

QUOTE
Wow, like many political parties. Even though the bodyguards are contracted independently?


From the security services and the party faithful? The bouncer (I describe him as such because that is how he earns his living) who roughly evicted the old man from the conference, has already claimed that they were briefed on how to deal with protesters by senior party officials.

QUOTE
Scaremongering as usual.


Or coming up with 4 after seeing 2 + 2.

QUOTE
I'll presume you're English right? So on ITV there was a show where older generations were pitted against the GCSEs of today in which they actually found it harder to pass.


Presumably because they had been out of education for sometime! I think I read somewhere that you were at university, go and tell your lecturers that GCSE'S are more challenging than O'Levels. One of the chief complaints about the GCSE when it was introduced was that it didn't adequately prepare students for the jump to A Level. This is one of the concerns than Universitys share with the proposals to dumb down A Levels. The CBI and The Institute of Directors share these concerns about the falling standards in education.

QUOTE
People just don't like to put credit where it's due, you know maybe the generation that preceeded the former actually got smarter? But then again you wouldn't believe this.


I think they got older! They could however generally read and write, its not a bad platform for being smarter.

QUOTE
Bollocks, do you even remember the Conservative era in which they pretty much ripped out the entire system and underfunded it to fuck?


I don't disagree with this, I even stated as much earlier. However the problems that faced the NHS under the conservatives usually came down to gross underfunding, as with many other public services, under New Labour the problem is not underfunding, I'll agree, but gross mismanagement - something that can also be levelled at other public services.

QUOTE
All governments in the history of Humankind have failed to solve this problem. Irrelevant. As for one living in one of the poorest parts of the UK, I can honestly say they've made a difference.


The way to solve Homelessness is not difficult, it basically requires the will to do the obvious. Something the conservatives didn't have and neither does new labour. I visit London now as a tourist coming from the continent, what I saw shocked and embarrassed me. While governments throughout the history of humankind may have failed to solve the problem - as you say - but this doesn't detract from the fact that some governments do more than others. The irony is that as a significant proportion of the homeless are ex-servicemen, after Iraq this is perhaps all some will have to look forward to - thats disgraceful.

QUOTE
Irrelevant. They still were allowed the democratic right of forming their own opinion.


Blair had no choice which makes it highly relevant. A politician can always exercise his democratic right within the chamber, but he/she has to be willing to pay the price - which can involve serious limits being placed on your political ambition and even deselection. So I think its highly relevant that a large number of Labour MP's opposed the Iraq war, and that they had the support of not only eachother, but their local parties and their constituents. Don't be so naive.

QUOTE
Robin Cook who sold arms to Sierra Leone and Indonesia.


Whilst serving in who's government? So he's not perfect and perhaps not as consistent as George Galloway. However as my point was that the rebels were led by the likes of Robin Cook (Who I mentioned because he was considered an intellectual giant among his fellow MP's as well as a leader of the left) and not that he had not overseen any dubious arms deals whilst serving as foreign secretary, what exactly is your point. When you are going to attack the person at the expense of addressing the issue, there should at least be some connection to your attack and the issue - otherwise you look stupid for nothing.

QUOTE
Do you even remember the years of the pre new labour movement? Party conferences were almost regulary heckled and shouted down. It's been toned down in order to appeal to middle income voters and pretty much middle England. The bodyguard incident was merely over enthusiastic, since it's not happened before and if it was the norm, we'd see plenty of protest and press coverage as we see now of the 86 yr old man.



Its been toned down to stifle debate perhaps appealing to the middle classes was an earlier argument that has lost its weight. Certain opinions are no longer tolerated. The Labour movement was once a broad church, that like any other had extreme elements. What we have just witnessed in the Labour Conference is a return to the old style union meeting, extremely well managed and policed, professional cheerers strategically placed , people on the look out for troublemakers/dissenters. The whole democratic nature of a political conference, the whole reason for having one, where the parties rank and file can have input into policy and voice their concern and idea's has been completely undermined. Its become a vanity event, which resembles more American style campaigning, than any serious debate or discussion. There is no place in the modern Labour party for those that do not agree with the leadership, you are cheer and support what the leadership says, or you get thrown out - not only are new labour dumbing down education, but also political debate.

QUOTE
The undemocratic former hereditary house of lords replaced by elected representatives?


???????????????? what ????????????

Referring to my comment about how New Labour has misled the people, the media, parliament, etc, over such issues as WMD's, how they have attempted to control and manipulate the media on a number of issues, you comment that...

QUOTE
All according to your perception, but the fact is, we've had it good under New Labour, and you're just bitching.


Which brings us once again back to "the trains run on time." territory.

QUOTE
You seem to think so much about my agenda, where in which I only support things such as Iraq and Afghanistan because regardless of the reasons in which we got there, we are now responsible for that area and we have to help them transistion to Democratic governance.



Its the fact that you don't seem to believe in accountability. Considering how bad things are going in Iraq, what on earth makes you think that Bush and Blair are the people to continue leadership. If a corporation is being run into the ground to the point of bankruptsy, is it natural to say, "Well he's taken us this far, we should stick with him." Now perhaps the American public are a little more guilty of this philosophy than us British, but really, Bush stumbles from one disaster to the next each time seemingly exploring new depths of incompetence. As for Blair, who is the bigger fool, the fool that leads or the fool that follows. I find it impossible to think that with the minds available to the US and British government, the current situation in Iraq was not anticipated - which means they didn't care. I'm interested in why.

Clearing up the mess that we have created, is an obvious responsibility that we will be burdened with for the foreseeable future, in my mind thats not even an issue - its common sense. I would strongly question however, whether the people who created the mess are necessaily the best people to lead us out of it and your unquestioning defence of them hardly takes us any nearer.

QUOTE
I've defended Jews on here, but then again, I guess that saying is pretty irrelevant, it's probably the same to you as someone saying 'One of my best friends is black'


It doesn't mean anything to me. My comment was aimed at correcting this habit you have of lumping anyone you perceive to be on the left with everyone else you perceive to be on the left. I was attempting to show how ridiculous it is to do that by returning the favour. So now that we know that not all people on the right want to exterminate the jews, its probably safe to assume that the left is also a broad church - so if the term rightist is meaningless, so to must the term leftist.

QUOTE
You're going to tell me that the likes of Lowell Gnuneo and KreeL are respectable members of the Left? Get your fucking act together. And being told that the terrorists plaguing Iraq are somehow not a problem, and where the Left actively campaigns for them rather than supporting their brothers in arms (you know the Kurds for one) is just hypocritical on the highest level.


First you would have to tell me what your definition of a respectable member of the left is. I suspect that if L,G & K are left wing (and here I share your suspicion), then they were perhaps left wing prior to the Iraq War and so it is a little unfair to define them solely in terms of it. Although clearly the terrorists that are now plaguing Iraq , weren't there prior to the invasion, so it also unfair to suggest that they support them, when in fact they opposed their creation in the first place. But perhaps these are questions that you should address to them personally. I know that while I do not support acts of terrorism, I can certainly understand it and why it arises in terms of historical consistency, rather than political expediency - and I can only assume they do likewise.












Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Ryan_Liam
post Oct 4 2005, 04:08 AM
Post #8


I need a freakin life
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,586
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE
The problem with that is that it wasn't an isolated issue. Over 600 people were questioned by police using the anti-terror laws. Many delegates had their motion papers confiscated by police - motion papers - that were blank on the opposing side and could be written on. Think TV camera's and anti-war slogans - now think freedom of speech.


Irrelevant, it doesn't equate = Orwellian police state. Could you provide cites for these facts you adhere too? It would be nice to know you're not bullshitting.

QUOTE
They apologised because media coverage forced their hand.


And still apologised.

QUOTE
They antipated incidents but didn't care - what they didn't count on was that the media would latch onto an incident involving a 84 year old peace protester and former labour candidate for parliament that had fled to Britain from Nazi Germany. Of course they apologised, they were wrong to create a climate where it could happen. I wonder if they would have apologised if it had not captured the imagination of the media.


I'm confident they would of apologised regardless.

QUOTE
Really, how was it an accident? The man was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Just like in Nazi Germany when he was a Jew, now in New Labours Britain for his opinions?


It was the heavy handedness of a private contracted bodyguard employee who the blame should be focused on, it wasn't as if Labour demanded he leave the area.

QUOTE
From the security services and the party faithful? The bouncer (I describe him as such because that is how he earns his living) who roughly evicted the old man from the conference, has already claimed that they were briefed on how to deal with protesters by senior party officials.


And by applying his own judgement, reacted in a worse off manner, wow, total repression of the people there by the actions of one man. Like I said, if this happened regulary there would be an uproar, but it hasn't, so you're just scaremongering as usual.

QUOTE
Or coming up with 4 after seeing 2 + 2.


so you're just scaremongering as usual.

QUOTE
Presumably because they had been out of education for sometime! I think I read somewhere that you were at university, go and tell your lecturers that GCSE'S are more challenging than O'Levels.


Again bollocks, you fail to take into account the average IQ of the UK citizen has improved over the number of years.

QUOTE
One of the chief complaints about the GCSE when it was introduced was that it didn't adequately prepare students for the jump to A Level. This is one of the concerns than Universitys share with the proposals to dumb down A Levels. The CBI and The Institute of Directors share these concerns about the falling standards in education.


I wouldn't call them failing, I would call them sufficient to the needs of Children in education.

If GCSE's were that terrible they would of been scrapped years ago.

QUOTE
I think they got older! They could however generally read and write, its not a bad platform for being smarter.


You're thinking in terms of people ageing, I'm comparing a child of the 70's to a child of the 90's and there is a marked difference in the standard of intelligence.

QUOTE
I'll agree, but gross mismanagement - something that can also be levelled at other public services.


Gordon Brown has pledged to reduce the number of Civil servants in government by 90,000.

Gross mismanagement you can blame on the Conservatives too.

QUOTE
The way to solve Homelessness is not difficult, it basically requires the will to do the obvious.


Again I state homelessness is a problem that has been with us for centuries, it won't be eradicated by a New Labour government or the next one, it will always be around due to the decisions of the individual.

QUOTE
Something the conservatives didn't have and neither does new labour. I visit London now as a tourist coming from the continent, what I saw shocked and embarrassed me


I don't care, Homelessness is something that has affected all countries.

QUOTE
While governments throughout the history of humankind may have failed to solve the problem - as you say - but this doesn't detract from the fact that some governments do more than others.


So?

QUOTE
The irony is that as a significant proportion of the homeless are ex-servicemen, after Iraq this is perhaps all some will have to look forward to - thats disgraceful.


:lol:

Frankly bollocks. a small proportion get homeless, because of family or personal problems, nice try in trying to blame Iraq for the expected increase of homeless servicemen/women.

And if they are homeless, they've obviously forgotten their war pension they recieve.

QUOTE
Blair had no choice which makes it highly relevant. A politician can always exercise his democratic right within the chamber, but he/she has to be willing to pay the price - which can involve serious limits being placed on your political ambition and even deselection. So I think its highly relevant that a large number of Labour MP's opposed the Iraq war, and that they had the support of not only eachother, but their local parties and their constituents. Don't be so naive.


The leader of the UK has to look out for his countrys safety before adhering to the overriding opinions of his constituents. So don't be so stupid as to assume the publics always right, and in this case it isn't.

A large number opposed, but a large part - a majority, supported the war. Even the Conservatives backed the war, and it's main opposition leader.

QUOTE
Whilst serving in who's government?


Blairs of course, I never claimed him to be a demigod of worthy praise, but he's better than the amount of shitty leaders we've had in the past 40 odd years.

QUOTE
So he's not perfect and perhaps not as consistent as George Galloway.


Oh the man who in turn praised Syria, the country in which the insurgents flock to then make their headway to Iraq, and eventually to places where Casey Sheehan was killed on his second enlistment? That kind of consistent man? Where the fuck are you priorities?

QUOTE
However as my point was that the rebels were led by the likes of Robin Cook (Who I mentioned because he was considered an intellectual giant among his fellow MP's as well as a leader of the left)


Just because he speaks well and is respected doesn't mean he can't make a mistake.

QUOTE
and not that he had not overseen any dubious arms deals whilst serving as foreign secretary, what exactly is your point.


My point is that he opposes the Iraq conflict whilst supporting/ed other conflicts by signing arms deals. If he was such a moralist, then why even take up that situation where he would have to negotiate in the arms trade?

QUOTE
When you are going to attack the person at the expense of addressing the issue, there should at least be some connection to your attack and the issue - otherwise you look stupid for nothing.


And you spoke to soon. :lol:

QUOTE
Its been toned down to stifle debate perhaps appealing to the middle classes was an earlier argument that has lost its weight.


I don't think so, appealing to the Middle classes is what keeps it in power.

QUOTE
Certain opinions are no longer tolerated


It's a political party, there are certain tenets in which you have to believe in to join it. That's why it's called Labour.

QUOTE
The Labour movement was once a broad church, that like any other had extreme elements. What we have just witnessed in the Labour Conference is a return to the old style union meeting, extremely well managed and policed, professional cheerers strategically placed , people on the look out for troublemakers/dissenters.


Well since I live in the UK, and have seen the Labour party to in action, I know this not to be the case, what you fail to understand is the history of post war UK politics, and how it was very fucking difficult for the Labour party to ever reach a second term, or even effectively govern a 1st world economy without trailing it back to the 3rd, but what I'm getting at is the Labout party reformed in order to survive.

So yeah, you can have all the broad spectrum you want, you can have Galloway whoever you choose, but it won't get you elected, especially not if they're at the forefront of the party cabinet.

So no, what we witnessed was Labour organising itself and appealing to voters, which is what a political party should do, and win power. And what you witnessed was an isolated incident.

And again, what you're preaching, is just mindless scaremongering, you've just praised George Galloway, why the fuck would I take you seriously now?

QUOTE
The whole democratic nature of a political conference, the whole reason for having one, where the parties rank and file can have input into policy and voice their concern and idea's has been completely undermined


Cite? Parties rank and file don't boo down the leader of the party, does that mean they are being oppressed in their free speech?

QUOTE
. Its become a vanity event, which resembles more American style campaigning, than any serious debate or discussion.


I request to see evidence of this taking place.

QUOTE
There is no place in the modern Labour party for those that do not agree with the leadership, you are cheer and support what the leadership says, or you get thrown out - not only are new labour dumbing down education, but also political debate.


The formula for a successful government is a united cabinet, united poltical party, and you seem to blame the state of New Labour in the way in which it handles debate, well, if this is the case you're blaming the wrong party, unless you've forgotten Margret Thatcher?

Anyway, cites for what you said please.

QUOTE
Referring to my comment about how New Labour has misled the people, the media, parliament, etc, over such issues as WMD's, how they have attempted to control and manipulate the media on a number of issues, you comment that...


Yep, and from what I just read in your post, you've just praised George Galloway, I now question your mental stability to actually admire such a man.

QUOTE
Which brings us once again back to "the trains run on time." territory.


Last time I checked Labour lost seats and didn't declare martial law. And the trains still don't run on time here /sarcasm

Again, persistent scaremongering, you're the same type of bitches who whinged when Maggie Thatcher was doing the same, yet last time I checked, she resigned and then her government in 97' got booted out of office. Times change.

QUOTE
Its the fact that you don't seem to believe in accountability.


No, where have I said I supported the reasons for going to war? I haven't, however, I fully support the Iraqi government, the Coalition and the UN in getting Iraq back on it's feet, and that solution is with a long term Coalition presence.

QUOTE
Considering how bad things are going in Iraq, what on earth makes you think that Bush and Blair are the people to continue leadership.


They are people who correctly identified the problems with the Muslim world and applied appropiate force to deal with it. They also are helping the Iraqis build up a democratic government in the heart of one of the worlds most repressive regions, they also acknowledge that the situation of Iraq is a long term problem, which needs to be dealt with in a long term manner, not retreating, and not having domestic politics dictate foreign ones.

QUOTE
If a corporation is being run into the ground to the point of bankruptsy, is it natural to say, "Well he's taken us this far, we should stick with him."


You cannot compare Iraq to a corporation, and the situation in Iraq is not hopeless. I know that for a fucking fact.

QUOTE
Now perhaps the American public are a little more guilty of this philosophy than us British, but really, Bush stumbles from one disaster to the next each time seemingly exploring new depths of incompetence.


I don't think so, you're talking about Katrina right? It was a local problem which exaberated into a Federal one. if Katrina had done jack shit to New Orleans, there would be no complaining about the lack of Government response.

As for Iraq? It's not his job to dictate military strategy, its the erm, the militarys. As for the political process, despite the violence, Sunnis are joining the political process even if they are voting no onto the constitution. Also, Iraq has a historical first in the region to only having it's government elected by its people, same for Afghanistan, which now has a Parliament, with women memebers.

QUOTE
As for Blair, who is the bigger fool, the fool that leads or the fool that follows. I find it impossible to think that with the minds available to the US and British government, the current situation in Iraq was not anticipated - which means they didn't care. I'm interested in why.


Erm, you're a complete dumbass, there are lots of reasons why they don't anticipate the situations which came about, that's because they're not psychics and even the most accurate military and political assessments can be wrong. It's like saying we should of expected a violent insurgency in Northern Ireland when we brought in troops to protect the Catholics, no one can predict an insurgency.

QUOTE
Clearing up the mess that we have created, is an obvious responsibility that we will be burdened with for the foreseeable future, in my mind thats not even an issue - its common sense.


Wow, even though I don't regard Iraq as a mess, you've shown the slightest glimmer in thinking that we should stay put, even though it goes against your own analogy of 'staying with the Neo-Jewcon Corporation of Israel' until it goes bankcrupt.

QUOTE
I would strongly question however, whether the people who created the mess are necessaily the best people to lead us out of it and your unquestioning defence of them hardly takes us any nearer.


Yes they are, even if you think GWB is a complete tosser as is Blair, I still think they're the right people at the right time, for the only reason as they're the people in which will keep their promise to Iraq not to withdraw to score political points at home.

QUOTE
It doesn't mean anything to me. My comment was aimed at correcting this habit you have of lumping anyone you perceive to be on the left with everyone else you perceive to be on the left.


So you are denying you are on the left? Is that what you're saying?

QUOTE
I was attempting to show how ridiculous it is to do that by returning the favour. So now that we know that not all people on the right want to exterminate the jews, its probably safe to assume that the left is also a broad church - so if the term rightist is meaningless, so to must the term leftist.


I don't think so, however both the far left and far right both want to kill Jews.

Irrespective of what you say, I'm still going to use the word, just like you use the extensive details of your posts to drown out any regard of someone replying back, or the way in which you use appropiate vocabulary in which you mask the most ridiculous scare tactics and support of George Galloway, and hatred of GWB and Blair.

QUOTE
First you would have to tell me what your definition of a respectable member of the left is.


Christopher Hitchens through and through.

QUOTE
I suspect that if L,G & K are left wing (and here I share your suspicion), then they were perhaps left wing prior to the Iraq War and so it is a little unfair to define them solely in terms of it


I don't think so.

QUOTE
Although clearly the terrorists that are now plaguing Iraq , weren't there prior to the invasion, so it also unfair to suggest that they support them, when in fact they opposed their creation in the first place.


Yet they want us to withdraw from Iraq with no effective strategy in place for the Iraqi government to be capable of defeating them theirselves. That in turn is supporting the terrorists.

As for their wasn't any terrorists plaguing Iraq, no you're right there wasn't but there was one and he controlled all of Iraq.

QUOTE
But perhaps these are questions that you should address to them personally. I know that while I do not support acts of terrorism, I can certainly understand it and why it arises in terms of historical consistency, rather than political expediency - and I can only assume they do likewise.


Yes, oppression of other Muslims to transform society into one of the most orthodox religious theocracies on the face of the Earth.







Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Oct 4 2005, 02:19 PM
Post #9


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



QUOTE
Irrelevant, it doesn't equate = Orwellian police state. Could you provide cites for these facts you adhere too? It would be nice to know you're not bullshitting.


It would be nice if you read newspapers instead of just New Labour and Whitehouse press releases.

QUOTE
I'm confident they would of apologised regardless.


Irrelevant.

QUOTE
It was the heavy handedness of a private contracted bodyguard employee who the blame should be focused on, it wasn't as if Labour demanded he leave the area.


As I said before, the bodyguard has claimed that they were briefed on how to deal with protesters by senior party officials, and that what he did was in accordance with this.

QUOTE
I wouldn't call them failing, I would call them sufficient to the needs of Children in education.


Unfortunately the CBI and The Institute of Directors would disagree with you, as they represent employers and you represent someone who has probably recently taken your GCSE's, I'm inclined to value their opinion more. Maybe you did well in your GCSE's and you feel that I am undermining you achievement, but don't take it personally, I'm underming the achievement of all of your fellow 16-17 year olds. The important thing to remember is that its not your fault you're stupid, its the dumbing down of education thats the real problem, and thats down to New Labour- you're just an innocent victim in all this.

QUOTE
Gordon Brown has pledged to reduce the number of Civil servants in government by 90,000.


So?

QUOTE
I state homelessness is a problem that has been with us for centuries, it won't be eradicated by a New Labour government or the next one, it will always be around due to the decisions of the individual.


I don't think everyone that is homeless is exercising a lifestyle choice. To suggest that they are is stupid beyond belief. Having said that, if you do accept that not all homeless people choose to be homeless, then you must equally concede that New Labour has been woefully inadequate in tackling the problem.

QUOTE
The leader of the UK has to look out for his countrys safety before adhering to the overriding opinions of his constituents. So don't be so stupid as to assume the publics always right, and in this case it isn't.


So really we might as well dispense with democracy alltogether. Surely it would make life simpler. Why run the risk of having New Labour voted out, when you can have them forever. As you say yourself the publics not always right, and in the future they might get it wrong.

QUOTE
A large number opposed, but a large part - a majority, supported the war. Even the Conservatives backed the war, and it's main opposition leader.


NEWS Tuesday June 3, 2003


Iain Duncan Smith challenges Blair on WMD

Iain Duncan Smith has demanded an urgent statement from Tony Blair, as the credibility of the Prime Minister, his Government, and the intelligence services are called into question over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the failure of British and American forces to discover WMD since the end of the war which liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime, the Prime Minister has flatly refused the growing clamour for an independent inquiry into pre-war claims about the dictator's illegal arms stocks.

Instead Downing Street has signalled that Mr Blair may be prepared to sanction a probe by the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee - which includes Conservative MPs.

But on Tuesday, Mr Duncan Smith stepped up the pressure on Downing Street, warning that five key questions, which go to the heart of the Government's credibility, and that of the security and intelligence authorities, should be answered immediately.

These cover subjects which include allegations that Mr Blair personally interfered with the Government own WMD dossier published last September; that the Premier's claim that some of Saddam's WMD could be ready for use within 45 minutes was based on a single uncorroborated source; that there was no disagreement between 10 Downing Street and the Intelligence Service; and whether the PM agrees with Donald Rumsfeld that it was possible at the time of the Iraq invasion the coalition was unsure whether Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was prepared to use them.

In a letter to Mr Blair, the Conservative Leader also urged the Premier to immediately publish new evidence which he has said will reinforce his earlier claims about Iraq's WMD.

Mr Duncan Smith wrote: "Media coverage and accusations from within your own party are now undermining the vital credibility and integrity of our intelligence services and the manner in which Government responds to them. It is now urgent that these questions are fully and comprehensively answered. It is therefore imperative that you make a statement to the House this evening, and I call on you to do so."

Parliament was misled in the same way as the public and media. This attempt to make everyone equally responsible for the decesion to go into Iraq, without discriminating between those who had knowledge of the true state of affairs concerning Iraq's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical capabilities, is pathetic.

But of course, if we hadn't been misled, if we hadn't been cajoled and manipulated into supporting the war on Iraq, we might not even be there. The public with full knowledge of the facts might very well of decided not to go to war, looking at the evidence as its unfolded, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. Also people haven't changed their minds about going into Iraq, they just know more than they were permitted to do at the point of entry. Their understanding of the reasons why we went to war have developed. To cater for this the argument about WMD's and Al Qeada have been replaced with arguments about the greatness of bringing Democracy to Iraq - Its just a soundbite - the Iraqi's know it.

QUOTE
Oh the man who in turn praised Syria, the country in which the insurgents flock to then make their headway to Iraq, and eventually to places where Casey Sheehan was killed on his second enlistment? That kind of consistent man? Where the fuck are you priorities?


I mentioned Robin Cook. You mentioned George Galloway (as you often do in threads). Consistent in the sense that he always seems to take a position that you disagree with. Where are my priorities? Where the fuck are yours you feeble minded, rascist little shit. My priorities are truth and precision. Yours are rhetoric, party slogans and fear, you're a disgrace and embarassment to your nation and poster boy for the idea that a little education is a dangerous thing.

I read throught the rest of your comments and decided that where you didn't misinterpret my statements - either deliberately or because you're stupid - you decided to give a particularly low-brow interpretation of events/issues,etc.

QUOTE
Erm, you're a complete dumbass, there are lots of reasons why they don't anticipate the situations which came about, that's because they're not psychics and even the most accurate military and political assessments can be wrong.


They did anticipate what is happening - you really think they are that stupid! Its a high risk game

You might read about a lot of things on the web, or might even be taught in a class about some of these issues. But yours powers of analysis are non existant.
Your observations never look beyond the surface - learn to look behind something - who stands to gain - who are the players - what is your role...you walk through life looking at the sky painted on the underside of your umbrella.

















Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Ryan_Liam
post Oct 4 2005, 10:00 PM
Post #10


I need a freakin life
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,586
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE
It would be nice if you read newspapers instead of just New Labour and Whitehouse press releases.


I don't actually, however I do read alot of newspapers.

QUOTE
Irrelevant.


To your scaremongering yes.

QUOTE
As I said before, the bodyguard has claimed that they were briefed on how to deal with protesters by senior party officials, and that what he did was in accordance with this.


Heavy handedness doesn't equate with party policy, I'm sorry if it doesn't fit the criteria of your assesment of how New Labour = Authoritarian dictatorship, but that's how it is. The leadership apologised, the man who was affected accepted it, and is still a member of the party.

QUOTE
Unfortunately the CBI and The Institute of Directors would disagree with you, as they represent employers and you represent someone who has probably recently taken your GCSE's, I'm inclined to value their opinion more.


Well that's democracy for you, we're all entitled to our opinions, but from what you've stated about how even large influencial bodies can still be wrong, that's my opinion on their assessment.

QUOTE
Maybe you did well in your GCSE's and you feel that I am undermining you achievement, but don't take it personally, I'm underming the achievement of all of your fellow 16-17 year olds.


I'm 20 and I'm at University.

QUOTE
The important thing to remember is that its not your fault you're stupid, its the dumbing down of education thats the real problem, and thats down to New Labour- you're just an innocent victim in all this.


Well it goes to show even with all those CSE's you've somehow aquired, it somehow fails to supply adequate logic to your reasoning.

QUOTE
So?


You made claims to say that the Civil service was a large excess, well there's New Labours way of cutting it down.

QUOTE
I don't think everyone that is homeless is exercising a lifestyle choice.


Drug addicts Alcoholics and vagrants would suggest otherwise, when they use any means to suppliment their habit, it is a lifestyle choice, even if it is abhorrent, it's still their choice to make.

QUOTE
Having said that, if you do accept that not all homeless people choose to be homeless, then you must equally concede that New Labour has been woefully inadequate in tackling the problem.


Of course, but then again, every government has been, especially the Conservatives, but to suggest that it's solely New Labours problem is laying the blame game once again.

QUOTE
So really we might as well dispense with democracy alltogether. Surely it would make life simpler.


Erm no, but when you elect leaders on the assumption they'll protect you and make the decisions, don't start to bitch when they make ones you don't like, all you have to do is campaign to throw them out or elect them out of office, that's democracy, not one debated to you every week by a Zogby poll.

QUOTE
Why run the risk of having New Labour voted out, when you can have them forever. As you say yourself the publics not always right, and in the future they might get it wrong.


Yes the public is not always right, yet the Government has to have some degree of authority in which to override public opinion to ensure long term interests and security for the state.


QUOTE
NEWS Tuesday June 3, 2003


Iain Duncan Smith challenges Blair on WMD

Iain Duncan Smith has demanded an urgent statement from Tony Blair, as the credibility of the Prime Minister, his Government, and the intelligence services are called into question over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the failure of British and American forces to discover WMD since the end of the war which liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein's regime, the Prime Minister has flatly refused the growing clamour for an independent inquiry into pre-war claims about the dictator's illegal arms stocks.

Instead Downing Street has signalled that Mr Blair may be prepared to sanction a probe by the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee - which includes Conservative MPs.


He was cross examined on the intelligence documents and cleared by the Lord Hutton inquiry

QUOTE
But on Tuesday, Mr Duncan Smith stepped up the pressure on Downing Street, warning that five key questions, which go to the heart of the Government's credibility, and that of the security and intelligence authorities, should be answered immediately.


Which they were by the Hutton inquiry

QUOTE
These cover subjects which include allegations that Mr Blair personally interfered with the Government own WMD dossier published last September; that the Premier's claim that some of Saddam's WMD could be ready for use within 45 minutes was based on a single uncorroborated source; that there was no disagreement between 10 Downing Street and the Intelligence Service; and whether the PM agrees with Donald Rumsfeld that it was possible at the time of the Iraq invasion the coalition was unsure whether Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was prepared to use them.


See above.

QUOTE
In a letter to Mr Blair, the Conservative Leader also urged the Premier to immediately publish new evidence which he has said will reinforce his earlier claims about Iraq's WMD.


Hutton Enquiry.

QUOTE
Mr Duncan Smith wrote: "Media coverage and accusations from within your own party are now undermining the vital credibility and integrity of our intelligence services and the manner in which Government responds to them. It is now urgent that these questions are fully and comprehensively answered. It is therefore imperative that you make a statement to the House this evening, and I call on you to do so."


The Hutton enquiry looked into all of this, and cleared the PM of any mishandling of intelligence.

QUOTE
Parliament was misled in the same way as the public and media. This attempt to make everyone equally responsible for the decesion to go into Iraq, without discriminating between those who had knowledge of the true state of affairs concerning Iraq's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical capabilities, is pathetic.


Well I agree I never believed the claims of the WMD, we could of come up with a better reason to invade Iraq than to scare the British and American public into believing it. However I do not agree that the PM or his Cabinet members lied to us.

QUOTE
But of course, if we hadn't been misled, if we hadn't been cajoled and manipulated into supporting the war on Iraq, we might not even be there.


And the world would of been worse off.

QUOTE
The public with full knowledge of the facts might very well of decided not to go to war


The public doesn't have the final decision to go to war, the Queen and the PM does, like I said, wars are not conducted on the basis of polls. And no, it isn't anti democratic.

looking at the evidence as its unfolded, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. Also people haven't changed their minds about going into Iraq, they just know more than they were permitted to do at the point of entry. Their understanding of the reasons why we went to war have developed.

QUOTE
To cater for this the argument about WMD's and Al Qeada have been replaced with arguments about the greatness of bringing Democracy to Iraq - Its just a soundbite - the Iraqi's know it.


Last time I checked Al Queda was still active in Iraq and the Iraqis themselves are pretty much happier that Saddam has gone.

Pollster says weary Iraqis back constitution

BAGHDAD, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Iraqis are exhausted by the country's descent into chaos and most pin their hopes on a new constitution as a first step toward order, the director of one of Iraq's few opinion polling agencies said on Tuesday.

Mehdi Hafedh of the Iraqi Centre for Development and International Dialogue said his latest poll showed support for the draft constitution going into a vote on Oct. 15 was widespread -- even in areas where Sunni Arab groups fighting a bloody campaign to derail the new charter are strong.

"The Iraqi people want to finalise the political process as soon as possible ... They want to establish a normal government and institutions," Hafedh said in an interview in Baghdad.

"Iraqis want this situation to end. It is untenable."

Hafedh's non-profit organisation, funded partially by the United Nations, has conducted two opinion polls of Iraqis in the last several months, a groundbreaking effort in a country where politics has been shadowed by fear for decades.

Dissenting political views could quickly bring death under Saddam Hussein, whose secret police doled out brutal punishment to those who opposed his rule.

U.S. troops ousted Saddam in 2003, but sectarian turmoil has kept people on edge. Some elements of the insurgency by Sunni Arab groups have targeted civilians in the Shi'ite majority, while Sunnis accuse the Shi'ite-led government of its own abuses.

Against this violent backdrop, Hafedh has sought to figure out what Iraqis of all sects and ethnic backgrounds think of their country's future as it heads into the constitutional vote and an election for a new government in December.

The draft constitution is now almost certain to pass after Shi'ite groups used their majority in parliament to push through new rules designed to stymie opposition. However, the rules may be reviewed after criticism from the United Nations.

Hafedh, who was minister of planning under former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, said it nevertheless appeared to have the support of most Iraqis.

"The part that surprised me was the percentage of supporters for the referendum. I didn't expect that," he said.

STRONG SUPPORT

Hafedh's poll of 3,625 Iraqis between Sept 14-19 showed 79 percent in favour of the new constitution against eight percent opposed. The remainder did not answer the question.

While support was particularly high in the northern Kurdish areas and southern regions dominated by Shi'ites, Hafedh said it also ran at over 50 percent in central provinces known as the heartland of Sunni Arab unrest -- a sign, he said, that the Sunni-Shi'ite split was not as wide as many fear.

"This is exaggerated by political elites who are seeking power and by Western media and analysts," Hafedh said.

"If you go down to the streets, you can't tell who is Sunni and who is Shi'ite. We are all mixed."

As further evidence for this view, Hafedh said most of those voting "no" on the constitution cited reasons ranging from Iraq's lack of sovereignty to its poor security while far fewer cited explicit political concerns over the document.

Hafedh conceded it was sometimes difficult to gauge the precise political views of Iraq's voters, and that many poll respondents may have be influenced by religious leaders who have called for support for the constitution.

But he said his organisaton's 45 pollsters were well trained and he was confident that the results would be accurate.

"People feel they are now free and it is not a problem if they express their opinions freely," he said. "I feel in general this is a lot of progress."


QUOTE
I mentioned Robin Cook. You mentioned George Galloway (as you often do in threads). Consistent in the sense that he always seems to take a position that you disagree with. Where are my priorities?


You said in the last part Robin wasn't as consistent or perfect as George Galloway. Hence that's why I brought it up, because I consider it a personal effort of mine to pretty much destroy anyones assumptions that George Galloway is anything but consistent.

QUOTE
Where the fuck are yours you feeble minded, rascist little shit. My priorities are truth and precision.


And yet you describe George Galloway as someone as consistent and somewhat perfect, great priorities. Get your fucking act together.

QUOTE
Yours are rhetoric, party slogans and fear, you're a disgrace and embarassment to your nation and poster boy for the idea that a little education is a dangerous thing.


This is all hillarious, I'm getting told off by someone who likes George Galloway, that = credibility plummets. Fear? You're saying I use fear? When you claim that New Labour is some Orwellian dictatorship, because of its isolated incident in which a party member was man handled.

QUOTE
I read throught the rest of your comments and decided that where you didn't misinterpret my statements - either deliberately or because you're stupid - you decided to give a particularly low-brow interpretation of events/issues,etc.


Oh boo fucking hoo, if you like to support someone who supports people like Bashir Asad who turns a blind eye to Jihadists who pass into Iraq, and then kill the likes of Casey Sheehan, then by all means asshole.

QUOTE
They did anticipate what is happening - you really think they are that stupid! Its a high risk game


Yes, but anticipation doesn't surmount to correct prediction. No one could predict that the insurgency would be that violent.

QUOTE
You might read about a lot of things on the web, or might even be taught in a class about some of these issues. But yours powers of analysis are non existant.


Nice 'intellectual' snobbery on your part, but it's irrelevant as I can accuse you just of the same.

QUOTE
Your observations never look beyond the surface - learn to look behind something - who stands to gain - who are the players - what is your role...you walk through life looking at the sky painted on the underside of your umbrella.


:rolleyes:

Oh no, if I only knew the bigger picture then it would all be clear to me! /sarcasm

This post has been edited by Ryan_Liam: Oct 4 2005, 10:06 PM
Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Oct 5 2005, 02:55 PM
Post #11


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



Ryan you quote me as saying,
QUOTE
As I said before, the bodyguard has claimed that they were briefed on how to deal with protesters by senior party officials, and that what he did was in accordance with this.


You reply,
QUOTE
The leadership apologised, the man who was affected accepted it, and is still a member of the party.


The incident nonetheless happened, along with others. An apology means very little when the climate that engineered the incident remains and future apologies (equally meaningless) will surely follow. Its clearly a price New Labour are willing to pay. Incidently while the old man accepted the apology it was not without criticism.

You quote me,
QUOTE
Unfortunately the CBI and The Institute of Directors would disagree with you, as they represent employers and you represent someone who has probably recently taken your GCSE's, I'm inclined to value their opinion more.


You respond,
QUOTE
Well that's democracy for you, we're all entitled to our opinions, but from what you've stated about how even large influencial bodies can still be wrong, that's my opinion on their assessment.


You're entitled to your opinion, yes - but its incorrect. To take the Labour Conference as an example, apparently we are entitled to our opinions so long as they concur with those of the New Labour leadership, ergo you are entitled to your opinion because you restrict yourself to repeating New Labour soundbites and rhetoric - which strictly speaking isn't your opinion now is it.

You quote me,
QUOTE
Maybe you did well in your GCSE's and you feel that I am undermining you achievement, but don't take it personally, I'm underming the achievement of all of your fellow 16-17 year olds.


You respond with,
QUOTE
I'm 20 and I'm at University.


Needless to say, further evidence of a dumbing down of education.

You say,
QUOTE
Well it goes to show even with all those CSE's you've somehow aquired, it somehow fails to supply adequate logic to your reasoning.


I also took GCSE's and I will freely admit that they are easier than O'levels (I got a good grade in Maths for gods sake!), however they are perhaps on a par with CSE's . As for the rest of your sentence, its just meaningless jibberish.

You say,
QUOTE
You made claims to say that the Civil service was a large excess, well there's New Labours way of cutting it down.


If someone employs 50 people to do the work of 30 making 1 person redundant could hardly be considered an applaudable decision. Let me make it easier for you to comprehend. The public is responsible for paying the salaries of the remaining 49 and the redundancy package of the unfortunate 1.

You quote me,
QUOTE
I don't think everyone that is homeless is exercising a lifestyle choice.


You respond with,
QUOTE
Drug addicts Alcoholics and vagrants would suggest otherwise, when they use any means to suppliment their habit, it is a lifestyle choice, even if it is abhorrent, it's still their choice to make.


Here you assume that drug addicts and alcoholics are everyone that is homeless. Some are ex-servicemen, some are ex-prisoners, some people previously in the care of social services, some just down on their luck. But all are the responsibility of society - and therefore government if we are to seriously consider ourselves civilised.

You quote me,
QUOTE
Having said that, if you do accept that not all homeless people choose to be homeless, then you must equally concede that New Labour has been woefully inadequate in tackling the problem.


you reply with,
QUOTE
Of course, but then again, every government has been, especially the Conservatives, but to suggest that it's solely New Labours problem is laying the blame game once again.


New Labour is in power and therefore responsible. When the conservatives are in power I will judge them accordingly - but I refuse to accept that New Labour are somehow devolved from responsibility because a previous administration failed to tackle the problem.

You say,
QUOTE
Erm no, but when you elect leaders on the assumption they'll protect you and make the decisions, don't start to bitch when they make ones you don't like.


Democracy doesn't exist for 24hours every 4-5 years, and we elect governments on many issues and they are accountable when they fail to deliver. But to take up your mention of "protecting us", surely within this area would be included our civil rights, liberties and right to protest.

You say,
QUOTE
Yes the public is not always right, yet the Government has to have some degree of authority in which to override public opinion to ensure long term interests and security for the state.


And I have no problem with this as long as its done with our interests in mind. However, how have the interests of the people of Britain been served by the invasion of Iraq, and how have they been served by the holding of an 84 year old peaceful protester under terrorism laws.
In 2004 the Law Lords ruled that the indefinite detention without trial of forein nationals under New Labours emergency terror laws was incompatible with European human rights laws. Lord Nicholls commented at the time, that "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law. It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford." Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty commented, "By acting as judge, jury and jailer the government has flouted the very values it claims to defend."
Ken Clarke stated yesterday, "...we do not lack anti-terrorist laws. I do not believe that the recent London bombs were the result of any deficiencies in our legal system...No amount of military action, on however great a scale, nor tough leglislation, of however draconian a nature, are in themselves going to make us safer or usher in a saner and more rational world. I marvel that Prime Minister Blair, who has such an excellent record of seeing through John Major's initiative in Northern Ireland, should fail to make the same judgements on the problem of resolving our conflicts with the Muslim world.Iraq was a diversion from the core task of the pursuit and destruction of al Qaida. Indeed, the failure to prepare properly for the aftermath of invasion has led to a horrifying expansion of terrorist activity in Iraq. We must not make such a mistake again...New laws after every terrorist atrocity can feed a sense of panic. They can also encourage the terrorists because if our response is an ever-more repressive set of laws, they will know that those laws are most likely to impact on communities from which they derive sympathy. We must always strive to preserve the freedoms we seek to defend. You do not beat the enemies of freedom by taking freedom away."
Ken Clarke, who's been a consistent critic of the invasion despite his party's officially supportive line also stated, "The disastrous decision to invade Iraq has made Britain a more dangerous place.....The reasons given to parliament for joining the invasion were bogus...The dangers of the invasion providing recruits and impetus to terrorist extremists were clear before the war."

You quote me as saying,
QUOTE
Parliament was misled in the same way as the public and media. This attempt to make everyone equally responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, without discriminating between those who had knowledge of the true state of affairs concerning Iraq's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical capabilities, is pathetic.


You reply,
QUOTE
Well I agree I never believed the claims of the WMD, we could of come up with a better reason to invade Iraq than to scare the British and American public into believing it. However I do not agree that the PM or his Cabinet members lied to us.


Its true they didn' lie they didn't lie, they "misled", as you have already quoted me as saying, unfortunately to all intents and purpose this is just semantics. But you do concede that the Prime Minister misled parliament, the media and the public.

You quote me,
QUOTE
But of course, if we hadn't been misled, if we hadn't been cajoled and manipulated into supporting the war on Iraq, we might not even be there.


You reply with,
QUOTE
And the world would of been worse off.


While my comment is speculative, you make a direct assertion. The onus is therefore on you to now provide evidence of how the world is a better place post-invasion. Incidently even if you insist on claiming that Iraqi's now living in the midst of near civil war are in theory better off, the fact remains that Iraq is not the World, merely one country. So how exactly, today, is the world a better place as a direct result of the decision to invade Iraq.

You quote me,
QUOTE
The public with full knowledge of the facts might very well of decided not to go to war


you respond with,
QUOTE
The public doesn't have the final decision to go to war, the Queen and the PM does, like I said, wars are not conducted on the basis of polls. And no, it isn't anti democratic.


If the vast majority of the population had been against the war, which seems likely if they had known then what they now know, then Blair would have been forced to pay attention. No country can go to war without the support of its people and expect to be successful - not in a democracy. Using this model do you agree that The Blair government subverted democracy by misleading over the issue of WMD's?

You quote me,
QUOTE
Also people haven't changed their minds about going into Iraq, they just know more than they were permitted to do at the point of entry. Their understanding of the reasons why we went to war have developed.


Yet strangely you offer no reply.

You quote me again,
QUOTE
To cater for this the argument about WMD's and Al Qeada have been replaced with arguments about the greatness of bringing Democracy to Iraq - Its just a soundbite - the Iraqi's know it.


You reply,
QUOTE
Last time I checked Al Queda was still active in Iraq and the Iraqis themselves are pretty much happier that Saddam has gone.

What do you mean "still active", in what way were Al Qaeda active in Iraq before?
You then go on to quote,
QUOTE
Pollster says weary Iraqis back constitution

BAGHDAD, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Iraqis are exhausted by the country's descent into chaos and most pin their hopes on a new constitution as a first step toward order, the director of one of Iraq's few opinion polling agencies said on Tuesday.

Mehdi Hafedh of the Iraqi Centre for Development and International Dialogue said his latest poll showed support for the draft constitution going into a vote on Oct. 15 was widespread -- even in areas where Sunni Arab groups fighting a bloody campaign to derail the new charter are strong.

"The Iraqi people want to finalise the political process as soon as possible ... They want to establish a normal government and institutions," Hafedh said in an interview in Baghdad.

"Iraqis want this situation to end. It is untenable."


Perhaps if Blair and Bush had merely expressed these hopes of a constitution for Iraq, instead of taking the WMD's approach, this would have been enough to satisfy the British and American public, to mention nothing of the media, the UN and the muslim world - somehow I doubt it. Besides, from what I can gather, in terms of the security of the Iraqi people and the gathering insurgency - the situation is still largely untenable.

You say,
QUOTE
yet you describe George Galloway as someone as consistent and somewhat perfect, great priorities. Get your fucking act together.


Actually I said Robin Cooks was not perfect in response to the fact that you had previously mentioned he sold arms to Indonesia and Sierra Leone - in what was clearly an attempt by you to undermine him as one of the major opponents to the Iraq War. I said he was not as consistent as George Galloway - by which I mean't that George Galloway while an opponent to the war on Iraq would also have been opposed to arms deals with Indonesia and Sierra Leone (which I assume he would be although of course I am largely speculating) - ergo he would be consistent on those two issues, where as Robin Cook as you pointed out by the mention of the arms deal was perhaps in conflict on a point of principle. While you may be determined to prove that George Galloway is not consistent, you would be well advised to seek out other avenues for exploration than of course the issues of selling of arms to Indonesia and Sierra Leone and opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But as my point was about Robin Cook it really makes no difference to me either way what your mission is concerning George Galloway, at least in terms of what I've previously said. So really what you say is a complete misrepresentation of what I've previousl commented and if you want to avoid looking like a "dumbass" or "tard" (take your pick) then in the future I suggest you either learn to read properly or simply cease twisting what people say in order to score cheap points. (If you see something you feel is a mistake, some window of attack - then assume its a trap - because to be honest with you, if it was a genuine mistake, I don't believe you would see it).

You say,
QUOTE
This is all hillarious, I'm getting told off by someone who likes George Galloway, that = credibility plummets. Fear? You're saying I use fear?


No, I don't. You're not that sophisticated, you merely respond out of fear - which is something entirely different. A brief glance at any of your anti-muslim threads proves that.

You quote me as saying,
QUOTE
I read throught the rest of your comments and decided that where you didn't misinterpret my statements - either deliberately or because you're stupid - you decided to give a particularly low-brow interpretation of events/issues,etc.


In confirmation you reply with,
QUOTE
Oh boo fucking hoo, if you like to support someone who supports people like Bashir Asad who turns a blind eye to Jihadists who pass into Iraq, and then kill the likes of Casey Sheehan, then by all means asshole.


Now you're just being hysterical. point out to me where exactly I stated in this thread support for someone who supports Bashir Asad, or indeed where I have voiced support for Bashir Asad. Or is it just a name you've plucked out of the air, like George Galloway. But of course you can't show me, because you've just made it up. Boo, fucking hoo...

You quote me as commenting on the insurgency in Iraq,
QUOTE

They did anticipate what is happening - you really think they are that stupid! Its a high risk game


You reply with,
QUOTE
Yes, but anticipation doesn't surmount to correct prediction. No one could predict that the insurgency would be that violent.


And yet they did and it was ignored....

Bush ignored warnings on Iraq insurgency threat before invasion

Intelligence suggested country faced years of tumult

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday September 29, 2004
The Guardian

The Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.
The warning, delivered in two classified reports to the White House in January 2003, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council, the same advisory board that warned the Bush administration last month that the violence in Iraq could descend into a civil war.
For full article, visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1314953,00.html

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you don't know something, that it doesn't exist. Learn to anticipate.

You quote me as saying,
QUOTE
You might read about a lot of things on the web, or might even be taught in a class about some of these issues. But yours powers of analysis are non existent.


You respond with,
QUOTE
Nice 'intellectual' snobbery on your part, but it's irrelevant as I can accuse you just of the same.


You could but you would be inaccurate.

This post has been edited by Teiresias: Oct 6 2005, 06:58 PM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Ryan_Liam
post Oct 6 2005, 07:41 PM
Post #12


I need a freakin life
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,586
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE
The incident nonetheless happened, along with others. An apology means very little when the climate that engineered the incident remains and future apologies (equally meaningless) will surely follow. Its clearly a price New Labour are willing to pay. Incidently while the old man accepted the apology it was not without criticism.


This is all irrelevant, it was an isolated incident and the man accepted his partys apology for the gross misconduct.

QUOTE
You're entitled to your opinion, yes - but its incorrect. To take the Labour Conference as an example, apparently we are entitled to our opinions so long as they concur with those of the New Labour leadership, ergo you are entitled to your opinion because you restrict yourself to repeating New Labour soundbites and rhetoric - which strictly speaking isn't your opinion now is it.


Yet the Labour backbenchers voted against the war and Claire Short was still in the cabinet until she resigned under her own admission in 2003. So there, dissenting voices even in the heart of the British government, being allowed to stay on even as they opposed the Iraqi conflict. Yeah, some Authoritarianism there for you.

QUOTE
Needless to say, further evidence of a dumbing down of education.


Oh wow, such wittyness I have no match for. What shall I do under the onslaught of such a 'educated' professional such as yourself with GCSE's.

QUOTE
I also took GCSE's and I will freely admit that they are easier than O'levels (I got a good grade in Maths for gods sake!), however they are perhaps on a par with CSE's . As for the rest of your sentence, its just meaningless jibberish.


Thanks for declaring that GCSE's are on a par with the previous exams that were in place for their introduction.

As for the rest of my sentence, it was to declare that even though you got those grades, it didn't really help you build up your case. But anyway, keep trying.

QUOTE
If someone employs 50 people to do the work of 30 making 1 person redundant could hardly be considered an applaudable decision. Let me make it easier for you to comprehend.


:rolleyes:

I understand perfectly thank you.

Pitty you don't provide evidence of this isn't it?

QUOTE
Here you assume that drug addicts and alcoholics are everyone that is homeless.


Because they usually are.

Some are ex-servicemen,

QUOTE
some are ex-prisoners


Who are drug addicts and alcoholics or violent offenders.

QUOTE
, some people previously in the care of social services, some just down on their luck.


Small minority.

QUOTE
But all are the responsibility of society - and therefore government if we are to seriously consider ourselves civilised.


:Yawn: Another lecture from a Psuedo intellectual telling me how society is supposed to solve a problem which has plagued humakind for generations.

QUOTE
New Labour is in power and therefore responsible.


The conservatives were in power for 18 years, and ripped apart the Welfare system, it takes time to repair the damage.

QUOTE
When the conservatives are in power I will judge them accordingly - but I refuse to accept that New Labour are somehow devolved from responsibility because a previous administration failed to tackle the problem.


Of course, however like I said you cannot blame them solely for the reason of homelessness.

QUOTE
Democracy doesn't exist for 24hours every 4-5 years, and we elect governments on many issues and they are accountable when they fail to deliver. But to take up your mention of "protecting us", surely within this area would be included our civil rights, liberties and right to protest.


I personally haven't felt my civil liberties or freedom threatened. Like I said, scaremongering. Lots of people seem to be free even if the anti terrorism laws derivative from the IRA bombing campaigns are still in place.

QUOTE
And I have no problem with this as long as its done with our interests in mind. However, how have the interests of the people of Britain been served by the invasion of Iraq, and how have they been served by the holding of an 84 year old peaceful protester under terrorism laws.


Isolated incident, like I said, he accepted the apology and is still a member of the said party. Now, if he regarded the assault as a hinderance of his civil liberties rather than something which happened in an isolated case, he, a man who faced the Nazis, would of not retained his membership.

QUOTE
In 2004 the Law Lords ruled that the indefinite detention without trial of forein nationals under New Labours emergency terror laws was incompatible with European human rights laws.


That's why Charles Clarke changed it to House Arrest. And freed the prisoners. Wow, police state in the making as the government backs down to pressure.

QUOTE
Lord Nicholls commented at the time, that "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law. It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford."


Charles Clarke changed the rules to house arrest and released the prisoners.

QUOTE
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty commented, "By acting as judge, jury and jailer the government has flouted the very values it claims to defend."


Shami Chakrabarti is known for her outlandish portrayal of anything the government does as anti democratic.

QUOTE
Ken Clarke stated yesterday, "...we do not lack anti-terrorist laws. I do not believe that the recent London bombs were the result of any deficiencies in our legal system...No amount of military action, on however great a scale, nor tough leglislation, of however draconian a nature, are in themselves going to make us safer or usher in a saner and more rational world.


That's strange anti terroristism drives pretty much defeated the IRA. And yes they did, they drove the IRA to such an extent in using the SAS, M16/6 in intelligence gathering operations combined with political negotiation, they pretty much destroyed the legitimacy of the IRA to sustain it's campaign of violence.

QUOTE
I marvel that Prime Minister Blair, who has such an excellent record of seeing through John Major's initiative in Northern Ireland, should fail to make the same judgements on the problem of resolving our conflicts with the Muslim world.


The Muslim world is not the same as Northern Ireland. The enemy we're facing wants to slaughter us for the sole reason of us being Non Muslim and powerful.

QUOTE
Iraq was a diversion from the core task of the pursuit and destruction of al Qaida. Indeed, the failure to prepare properly for the aftermath of invasion has led to a horrifying expansion of terrorist activity in Iraq.


I refuse to believe bringing democracy to the heart of the Middle East was a mistake. Democracy in the Arab world has lead to Libya giving up it's wmd, Lebanons Cedar revolution, Saudi municipal elections, Palestinian elections. A wind of change took place because they witnessed the changes taking place in Iraqi society.

QUOTE
We must not make such a mistake again...New laws after every terrorist atrocity can feed a sense of panic.


You can blame the public for raising the expectation of the leadership doing something in proposing ways to protect civilians with new legislation.

QUOTE
They can also encourage the terrorists because if our response is an ever-more repressive set of laws, they will know that those laws are most likely to impact on communities from which they derive sympathy. We must always strive to preserve the freedoms we seek to defend. You do not beat the enemies of freedom by taking freedom away."


Scare mongering. Man you're as bad as Peter Hitchens.

Ken Clarke, who's been a consistent critic of the invasion despite his party's officially supportive line also stated,

QUOTE
"The disastrous decision to invade Iraq has made Britain a more dangerous place.....The reasons given to parliament for joining the invasion were bogus...The dangers of the invasion providing recruits and impetus to terrorist extremists were clear before the war."


Ken Clarke is also not stupid in playing the Iraq card against the Labour party as it's a weakness, he couldn't care less about the place. Also, it's dangerous for him to use this as a platform and then realising that pulling out would be far worse than staying in. That's why although intelligent, he's acting like a dumbass.

Terrorists would of found some other damn reason to attack us or fellow Muslims. They don't care about what we do. Only how to destroy us and people who don't agree with them.

QUOTE
Its true they didn' lie they didn't lie, they "misled", as you have already quoted me as saying, unfortunately to all intents and purpose this is just semantics. But you do concede that the Prime Minister misled parliament, the media and the public.


Note to dumbass, mislead doesn't always mean lie. And don't put words into my mouth saying that I somehow concede that the PM mislead which you think in effect means he lied to us.

QUOTE
While my comment is speculative, you make a direct assertion. The onus is therefore on you to now provide evidence of how the world is a better place post-invasion.


Iraq has an elected government, the first in the Arab world, it also has a constitution which was written with broad consensus, even if the Sunnis didn't agree to it, they're still registering at the polls expecting their voice to be heard. The Iraqi army is 100 batillions strong, and is taking more of a presense with US joint operations, why today the Iraqi army took control of central Baghdad and some of the worst districts.

Al Zarqawis bombing campaign is not a show of power, merely a show of force.

QUOTE
Incidently even if you insist on claiming that Iraqi's now living in the midst of near civil war are in theory better off,


Yep, the Sunni Shia divide has been exaggerated.

QUOTE
the fact remains that Iraq is not the World, merely one country. So how exactly, today, is the world a better place as a direct result of the decision to invade Iraq.


A Muslim Arab country is fighting the Insurgents to save their own nation from destruction. It provides an example to the Middle East how destructive political Islam can be, why you look at the polling taken as to how much support Al Queda gets nowadays in comparison to just after September and it's dropped siginificantly, only in Jordan which yet has to see a large terrorist attack, does it remain strong.

The world is also better off in the reason that the nation of Iraq isn't directed by one man who could and has, destabilised the area before with his quest for territory. We have now a country dedicated to the process of in which it will gear towards a democracy and on consensus, rather than the arab tradition of brute force.

If the vast majority of the population had been against the war, which seems likely if they had known then what they now know, then Blair would have been forced to pay attention.

QUOTE
No country can go to war without the support of its people and expect to be successful - not in a democracy.


Ask the people if they want us to withdraw before the job is done rather than just 'pulling out' and you'll be surprised.

QUOTE
Using this model do you agree that The Blair government subverted democracy by misleading over the issue of WMD's?


Nope, because I believe the fault was with intelligence, not with Blair being a liar.

QUOTE
Yet strangely you offer no reply.


Which is now irrelevant, many people regardless of the actions we've taken, they support the idea of a democratic government in Iraq.

QUOTE
Perhaps if Blair and Bush had merely expressed these hopes of a constitution for Iraq, instead of taking the WMD's approach, this would have been enough to satisfy the British and American public


Which is why I said I take the Christopher Hitchens route of believeing the UK and US governments didn't need to be scared into invading Iraq.

QUOTE
, to mention nothing of the media, the UN and the muslim world - somehow I doubt it. Besides, from what I can gather, in terms of the security of the Iraqi people and the gathering insurgency - the situation is still largely untenable.


Again bollocks, back in 2004 Fallujah, Mosul, Ramadi, Haditha and Al Qaim and a large portion of Sunni cities were pretty much run by the insurgents, but ever since 2004 in November, the insurgent 'ratlines' along the Euphrates are being broken up and pushed back to the Syrian border.

US and Iraqi troops have been establishing more and more of a presense in the Anbar province to ensure the insurgents have less freedom of movement.

In Baghdad, Hut Karbala Najaf, all security responsibilities have been handed back to Iraqi security forces. Nato has set up a training facility outside Baghdad, Iraqis are in charge of maintaining security alongside the Airport road leading to Baghdad, and Haifa Street, in which was one of the worst places in Baghdad, has been in control of Iraqi security forces and has seen a marked drop in attacks.

QUOTE
Actually I said Robin Cooks was not perfect in response to the fact that you had previously mentioned he sold arms to Indonesia and Sierra Leone - in what was clearly an attempt by you to undermine him as one of the major opponents to the Iraq War.


Yep.

QUOTE
I said he was not as consistent as George Galloway - by which I mean't that George Galloway while an opponent to the war on Iraq would also have been opposed to arms deals with Indonesia and Sierra Leone (which I assume he would be although of course I am largely speculating) - ergo he would be consistent on those two issues, where as Robin Cook as you pointed out by the mention of the arms deal was perhaps in conflict on a point of principle.


Yes.

QUOTE
While you may be determined to prove that George Galloway is not consistent, you would be well advised to seek out other avenues for exploration than of course the issues of selling of arms to Indonesia and Sierra Leone and opposition to the invasion of Iraq.


Ok if you don't want me to be citing Iraq as an example, George Galloways explanation of the Soviet Unions collapse as a catastrophe is more than enough.

QUOTE
But as my point was about Robin Cook it really makes no difference to me either way what your mission is concerning George Galloway


It does point out the hypocrisy of the anti war politicians as much as you claim Blair and his associates to be also of the same nature.

QUOTE
at least in terms of what I've previously said. So really what you say is a complete misrepresentation of what I've previousl commented and if you want to avoid looking like a "dumbass" or "tard" (take your pick) then in the future I suggest you either learn to read properly or simply cease twisting what people say in order to score cheap points. (If you see something you feel is a mistake, some window of attack - then assume its a trap - because to be honest with you, if it was a genuine mistake, I don't believe you would see it).


:lol:

QUOTE
No, I don't. You're not that sophisticated, you merely respond out of fear - which is something entirely different. A brief glance at any of your anti-muslim threads proves that.


I'm not fearful of Muslims, I merely want to see Europeans take some measures to ensure once they become a majority, that the institutions and democracy and secularism that we've cultivated isn't immediately extinguished by them. And since Muslim immigrants tend to be more extremist than their counterparts in their home countries, there is some basis to take up some action to ensure our institutions survive.

If Albanians and Bosnians, Kurds and to a lesser extent Turks can discredit Islamism as a political force and understand the reasons they have too, then so should we.

QUOTE
Now you're just being hysterical. point out to me where exactly I stated in this thread support for someone who supports Bashir Asad, or indeed where I have voiced support for Bashir Asad.


I haven't stated you supported Bashir Asad, I stated that anti war protestors like George Galloway who support Casey Sheehans mum, ignore the fact that a person like Asad supported the insurgents who killed Sheehans son.

QUOTE
Or is it just a name you've plucked out of the air, like George Galloway. But of course you can't show me, because you've just made it up. Boo, fucking hoo


Then why get angry for the fact I brought up George Galloways inconsistency?

So I ask again, where the fuck are your priorities?

QUOTE
And yet they did and it was ignored....


an insurgency on that scale of violence can never be anticipated.

QUOTE
Intelligence suggested country faced years of tumult


Which is pretty normal to expect in a multi ethnic country, however, the level of violence cannot be measured by mere predition.

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday September 29, 2004
The Guardian

QUOTE
The Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.


The anti US rhetoric is pretty much a no brainer, and a symptom not really unexpected in the Middle East.

QUOTE
The warning, delivered in two classified reports to the White House in January 2003, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council, the same advisory board that warned the Bush administration last month that the violence in Iraq could descend into a civil war.
For full article, visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1314953,00.html


Yet Iraq hasn't decended into Civil war.

During a meeting attended by more than 50 identities, representing liberal and Sunni and Shiite religious forces; including Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen from the Iraqi Islamic Party, and political identities, in addition to clan chiefs from the center, south and west of Iraq, within the efforts for creating a wide-scale national bloc that would enter the elections, which are supposed to be held by the end of this year, Allawi stressed the existence of great worries on behalf of the Arab and western countries with regard to what is taking place in Iraq. "They are worried about what is happening in Iraq and the sectarian, racial and party issues that started to take a dangerous tendency and led to serious tension for everyone," he said. In this regard, Allawi referred to the statements of several Arab leaders and politicians.

http://www.almendhar.com/english_6740/news.aspx

Looks like Iraqis are beginning to see the advantages of secular politicians in a sectarian society.

QUOTE
Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you don't know something, that it doesn't exist. Learn to anticipate.


:rolleyes: Don't make the assumption that the worst is always going to happen in Iraq we've been proven wrong on a number of occasions.

QUOTE
You could but you would be inaccurate.


As would you.

This post has been edited by Ryan_Liam: Oct 6 2005, 07:43 PM
Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Oct 9 2005, 07:01 PM
Post #13


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



You quote me as saying,
QUOTE
The incident nonetheless happened, along with others. An apology means very little when the climate that engineered the incident remains and future apologies (equally meaningless) will surely follow. Its clearly a price New Labour are willing to pay. Incidently while the old man accepted the apology it was not without criticism.


You reply,
QUOTE
This is all irrelevant, it was an isolated incident and the man accepted his partys apology for the gross misconduct.


Its highly relevant and I've already pointed out that it was not an isolated incident, but so there can be no confusion.

Walter Wolfgang: 'We have been lied to about the war. I dared to speak the truth'

By Walter Wolfgang

09/30/05 "The Independent" -- -- My case is not important. But what happened to me when I was ejected from the Labour conference - simply for a one-word protest during Jack Straw's speech this week - tells us there is something deeply wrong with the culture of our Government under Tony Blair.

We have been lied to about the war. But not only that. The party has been manipulated so that it has not been allowed to discuss the issue properly.

Indeed, the Labour leaders have got so nervous of criticism that when I shouted the single word "nonsense"- when the Foreign Secretary sought to paper over the issue with smooth words - party officials sent the bouncers in. Even one word of criticism, it seems, was too much.

I had not intended to heckle, much less to make myself the centre of national attention and a debate about whether free speech still exists in the modern Labour Party. But Jack Straw spoke such nonsense - about Iraq, and about Kosovo - that it pushed me over the edge.

I could have said a lot more than that one word. I could have said that we should not have marched into Iraq at all. I could have said we were lied to about the war. But one word was enough. Even so I could not believe that stewards were bearing down on me just because I dared to speak the truth.

Tony Blair is the worst leader the Labour Party has ever had, Ramsay Macdonald included. Mr Blair's instincts are basically those of a Tory. He picked up this cause from the Americans without even analysing it. I suspect that he is too theatrical even to realise that he is lying.Etc.

MORE than 600 people were detained under the Terrorism Act during the Labour party conference, it was reported yesterday.
Anti-Iraq war protesters, anti-Blairite OAPs and conference delegates were all detained by police under legislation that was designed to combat violent fanatics and bombers - even though none of them was suspected of terrorist links. None of those detained under Section 44 stop-and-search rules in the 2000 Terrorism Act was arrested and no-one was charged under the terrorism laws.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2028602005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291424.stm

A group representing 500 Labour politicians, union members and other activists demanded an independent inquiry into the way the party conference was being run in the wake of the "brutal treatment" of Mr Wolfgang.
The Labour Representation Committee claimed there had been intimidation of delegates, allegations of corruption of the democratic process and "blatant gerrymandering" of the conference agenda.
It alleged that emergency resolutions to the conference had been excluded for "spurious" reasons, that delegates received text messages from party officials telling them which way to vote and that speeches had been "planted" by party officials.
Labour MP John McDonnell, chairman of the committee, said: "Enough is enough - we cannot put up with this treatment any longer.
"We need a thorough independent investigation into the whole New Labour culture of intimidation, suppression of dissent and the gerrymandering of conference."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2005/...1580806,00.html

You quote me,
QUOTE
You're entitled to your opinion, yes - but its incorrect. To take the Labour Conference as an example, apparently we are entitled to our opinions so long as they concur with those of the New Labour leadership, ergo you are entitled to your opinion because you restrict yourself to repeating New Labour soundbites and rhetoric - which strictly speaking isn't your opinion now is it.


You reply,
QUOTE
Yet the Labour backbenchers voted against the war and Claire Short was still in the cabinet until she resigned under her own admission in 2003. So there, dissenting voices even in the heart of the British government, being allowed to stay on even as they opposed the Iraqi conflict.


Previously I have said that Labour backbenchers not only had safety of numbers on this particular issue, but also the support of their local party's and constituents in how they voted - How can you possibly find this insignificant? The government can hardly sanction MP's on an issue that splits the party - it could possibly instigate a vote of no confidence - remember the government counted on support from the conservatives on Iraq, a vote of no confidence from within the Labour ranks would have seriously put into doubt conservative support. Wake up!

With regards to Claire Short personally, to consider her position accurately you have to be aware of four points.

1) The Attorney General had backed Military action as being legal under International Law. (Claire Short is very specific about this in her reasons for not resigning initially).

2) She was told by Blair that he had persuaded Bush that there must be a resolution on creating a UN mandate on the reconstruction of Iraq where the UN takes a central role.

3) She resigns because the draft new resolution being discussed at the security council was not giving the UN its promised central role in rebuilding Iraq. She referred to the UK's position on this issue as "totally dishonourable" claiming the Blair government was supporting the US "in trying to bully" the UN security council.

4) She also complains that she learned the detail of the new UN resolution on rebuilding Iraq from BBC news online, when her department was supposed to have had a key role in Iraq's reconstruction.

Incidently the 1st point she seems to have been misled over...

Iraq war revelation: There was no full legal advice
Cabinet Secretary admits invasion based on single page of A4
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent
11 March 2005

Britain went to war on the basis of a single piece of paper setting out the legality of invading Iraq, the country's most senior civil servant has revealed.
The Government's case for war appeared to be in tatters last night after the Cabinet Secretary admitted that a parliamentary answer from Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, was the final legal opinion on the case for war. In an astonishing admission, Sir Andrew Turnbull disclosed that no "full" legal advice on an invasion of Iraq has ever existed.
He confirmed that a short parliamentary answer by the Attorney General was the "definitive advice" on the war sent to the Prime Minister and that "there is no other version".
The renewed doubts over the legality of the conflict are a severe setback to Tony Blair, who was hoping that Iraq would fade as a general election issue.
MPs had assumed that the parliamentary answer was a précis of a longer, more detailed legal opinion and ministers had come under intense pressure from the media to publish the "full" advice under the Freedom of Information Act.
The revelation astonished MPs. Sir Andrew was cross examined about the existence of full legal advice in a Commons committee after The Independent revealed Mr Blair may have breached the prime ministerial code by failing to provide the full legal advice to the Cabinet. Yesterday The Independent reported that questions were being raised by MPs about the existence of legal advice.
Charles Kennedy seized on the news and said it showed that the Government's case for war was shambolic. "This is an astonishing revelation which suggests utter confusion at the heart of government. The Prime Minister must now clarify the situation which is undermining public trust," the Liberal Democrat leader said. "He must provide a clear statement about what took place regarding the legal advice. Can it really be true that the legal basis on which we went to war consisted of a parliamentary answer and not a full legal opinion?"
After intense cross-examination by Tony Wright, the Labour chairman of the Public Administration Committee, Sir Andrew admitted: "There is not a longer version of that advice. There is no other version. This is the definitive statement of his views. In his view it was sufficient for his colleagues to be assured that he thought there was a legal basis for military action. It does not purport to be a summary of his advice. It was the definitive advice that he had reached."
Sir Andrew indicated there was not enough time for Lord Goldsmith to prepare a fuller statement because it was required quickly, when it became clear there would be no second resolution in the UN. He said it summarised his views and was not a summary of a larger document. "What he has put forward is the conclusion that he reached as a result of all the thinking he had been doing."
But Sir Andrew added there were "other papers" which the Government would not disclose.
Downing Street refused last night to "get into the advice process". The Prime Minister's official spokesman added that the Cabinet was given "an explanation of [the Attorney General's] conclusions" about the legality of war.
But Gordon Prentice, a Labour member of the Public Administration Committee, expressed amazement. He said: "We have been taken to war on the basis of a two-page summary conclusion."
The Attorney General gave a parliamentary answer in the Lords on 17 March 2003 which appears in the Butler report on the intelligence that led to war, on a single page of A4.
The answer says "authority to use force" exists from a combination of the UN resolutions. Lord Goldsmith concluded "the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today".
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman and a senior barrister, said the parliamentary answer could not be described as a legal opinion. It should contain pages of detailed argument and summaries, particularly on an issue such as war. "The written answer provided in the House of Lords could not possibly be described as a legal opinion," he said. "The Cabinet Secretary appears to confirm what many have suspected; that there was no formal opinion recording the Attorney General's change of mind."
The Attorney General did prepare a longer piece of legal advice which he presented to Mr Blair on 7 March. But that advice, believed to be a 13-page paper, is thought not to have given a definitive view on whether war would be legal.
Clare Short, a member of the Cabinet at the time, said the absence of a longer legal opinion meant Mr Blair had taken Britain to war "by deception".
Yesterday the Attorney General wrote to Ms Short, the former international development secretary, saying he did not accept her "allegations [on Tuesday] that I failed to comply with the ministerial code or that I misled the Cabinet".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/...sp?story=618882

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/AttorneyGeneral.htm

You quote me,
QUOTE
I also took GCSE's and I will freely admit that they are easier than O'levels (I got a good grade in Maths for gods sake!), however they are perhaps on a par with CSE's .


You reply,
QUOTE
Thanks for declaring that GCSE's are on a par with the previous exams that were in place for their introduction.


CSE's were what people took if they were deemed not capable of taking O'levels. GCSE's replaced both CSE's and O'levels.

You say,
QUOTE
I personally haven't felt my civil liberties or freedom threatened.


You obvioulsy haven't heard about the laws they want to bring in where you can be prosecuted for inspiring religious hatred.You may be forced to curb some of your opinions on Muslims or possibly face prison.

QUOTE
Lots of people seem to be free even if the anti terrorism laws derivative from the IRA bombing campaigns are still in place.


I agree lots of people seem to be free. As you appear to be unfamiliar with the laws we now have, here are some of them.

The Terrorism Act 2000
Section 44 removed the requirement that the police must have ‘reasonable suspicion’ a crime has, or is about to be, committed before stopping and searching suspects.
The police are entitled to search for articles that might be used in connection with terrorism in a particular area as long as a police officer of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable or higher has authorised the use of these powers.
The use of the power must later be approved by the Home Secretary.
The area can be as large as a city.
The order is made in secret with no court review and no suspicion is required.
This was intended to be used against terrorism suspects but campaigners claim it has been widely used by the police against peace protesters.
This act also deals with ‘proscribed organisations’ and makes it an offence (punishable by up to 10 years in prison) to be a member of or to support certain groups named by the Government.
In effect, this means you can be sent to prison without having committed any terrorist or normal criminal offence.
The act also extends the period of time terrorist suspects can be detained and questioned after arrest without being charged to 7 days.
The approval of a magistrate is still needed for detentions longer than two days.
Other parts of this Act make it illegal:
to incite terrorism abroad (this can be just someone speaking to someone else); and
to possess objects for terrorist purposes (the items themselves may be perfectly harmless).
The act imposes a duty to disclose information of a suspicion that another person has committed a terrorist offence, including money laundering.
The Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
The Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 was enacted by the Government in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
It is designed to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act which was responsible for the internment (imprisonment without trial) of 7,000 mostly Irish suspects between 1974 and 1992.
Part 4 of the Act allowed for the indefinite detention of foreign nationals without trial (or even being charged with a criminal offence) and has caused much controversy.
14 foreign nationals were detained under the Act in December 2001 for being ‘suspected international terrorists’ and were neither charged with a crime nor put on trial.
Unlike people detained for ‘ordinary’ crimes, these detainees were not charged with an offence, did not have the right to know the evidence against them, did not have the right to deny or explain that evidence, and did not have the right to a public jury trial.
In striking down this law, one of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffman, remarked: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."
Other Measures
The government is also able to use other laws against those it suspects of terrorism.
The government may extrude British citizens to a country willing to prosecute.
The government can also use the Royal Prerogative to take passports away from those it suspects of terrorism.
Where Now?
Following the London bombings, the government is proposing new laws to combat terrorism and has received the backing of the two other main parties in this effort.
First, the government agreed to set aside the renewal of the controversial ‘Control Orders’ until the New Year.
These orders, in use since early 2005 following the Law Lords striking down of imprisonment without trial laws, restrict the movement of terrorist suspects through electronic tagging, curfews and house arrest.
They have been heavily criticised, in particular by Michael Howard who thought that they would help recruit terrorists.
The government is also seeking assurances, initially from North African countries, that anyone expelled from Britain for inciting terrorism will not be tortured.
Also, it is believed that the recently enacted law outlawing incitement to religious hatred will be used to prosecute Muslim extremists as well as protecting Muslims.
Following the attacks, Gordon Brown called for tighter banking controls to stem the flow of terrorist finance and prevent money laundering by terrorist groups.
The government has now stated that it intends to enact new anti-terrorism legislation relatively quickly.
These new laws are expected to target foreign-born people who preach hate or eulogise terrorist acts and make it easier to keep them out of Britain or expel them if they are already here.
Other laws are likely to create offences of preparing for, training for or inciting acts of terrorism.
One law that has been specifically mentioned is “indirect incitement to terrorism.” It is unclear what this will actually mean.
BUT, it seems that these new laws would have been almost entirely ineffective at stopping the London attacks.
The four were British citizens, they used homemade explosives, and were not wealthy.
Although three of the four visited Pakistan, this is not currently illegal.
MI5 had investigated one of the men and determined that he was not a threat.
These new laws are only one response to the bombings. Disadvantages with this approach are that:
it is a reaction to a threat and can ignore the causes of that threat;
often such laws are passed too quickly with little wider consultation and are later struck down – like the 2001 anti-terrorism laws; and
the laws may curtail our liberties and unnecessarily target Muslims in a manner that is counterproductive to fighting terrorism.
Causes
On July 18, 2005, the Royal Institute for International Affairs and the Economic and Social Research Council, released a report that drew links between the bombings and Britain’s decision to join George W. Bush and the U.S.A. in invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The report argues that such action made Britain more likely to be a terrorist target.
In an ICM/Guardian poll released on July 19, 2005, two thirds of Britons agreed. Another poll released on July 26, 2005, found that 80% of British Muslims thought the Iraq war was a factor leading to the bombings.
Tony Blair’s government says there is no link and that "the terrorists will kill anyone who stands in the way of their own perverse ideology".
The government also sought to link the extremist teachings of some Imams, particularly in Pakistan, to the attacks.
In response, Munir Akram, the Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations, said: “You have to look at British society – what you are doing to the Muslim community and why the Muslim community is not integrating into British society, and try not to externalise the problems Britain faces with regard to race and religious relations.”
At this early stage, it seems that there is not one single cause but a number of factors that must be considered and addressed.
Did You Know?
Since the terrorism attacks of 2001, there has been a 300% increase in the use of police stop and search powers against South Asians.
According to a report by the Islamic Human Rights Commission on July 28, 2005, attacks against Muslims have increased 13-fold since July 7, 2005 and include criminal damage, arson, assault and murder.
During the summer of 2004, the BBC conducted a survey in which fictitious applications were made for jobs using applicants with the same qualifications and work experience, but different names. A quarter of the applications by the candidates with traditionally English sounding names were successful in securing an interview, but only 9% of applicants with Muslim names.

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Oct 9 2005, 07:11 PM
Post #14


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



You quote me,
QUOTE
Ken Clarke stated yesterday, "...we do not lack anti-terrorist laws. I do not believe that the recent London bombs were the result of any deficiencies in our legal system...No amount of military action, on however great a scale, nor tough leglislation, of however draconian a nature, are in themselves going to make us safer or usher in a saner and more rational world.


You reply,
QUOTE
That's strange anti terroristism drives pretty much defeated the IRA. And yes they did, they drove the IRA to such an extent in using the SAS, M16/6 in intelligence gathering operations combined with political negotiation, they pretty much destroyed the legitimacy of the IRA to sustain it's campaign of violence.


Inviting Sinn Fein to the table destroyed the legitamacy of the IRA to sustain its campaign of violence. Of course operations by the SAS and the intelligence services had an impact on the IRA's effectiveness with regards to terrorist operations. But it was political will that got us to the stage of disarmament, not containment. Incidently what impact do you imagine Internment in Northern Ireland had on reinforcing support for the IRA within the catholic community and enabling them to raise funding, you might remember that Sinn Fein/IRA received significant support from people within the US.

You quote me,
QUOTE
I marvel that Prime Minister Blair, who has such an excellent record of seeing through John Major's initiative in Northern Ireland, should fail to make the same judgements on the problem of resolving our conflicts with the Muslim world.


You reply,
QUOTE
The Muslim world is not the same as Northern Ireland. The enemy we're facing wants to slaughter us for the sole reason of us being Non Muslim and powerful.


You're missing the point of how to solve the problem, preferring instead to focus on the rhetoric emanating from extremists, which lets be clear, is designed purely to appeal to young disillusioned Muslims both domestically and abroad. You do not combat this rhetoric by alienating the muslim community with draconian laws that leave them feeling further disillusioned and victimised.

You quote me,
QUOTE
Iraq was a diversion from the core task of the pursuit and destruction of al Qaida. Indeed, the failure to prepare properly for the aftermath of invasion has led to a horrifying expansion of terrorist activity in Iraq.


You reply,
QUOTE
I refuse to believe bringing democracy to the heart of the Middle East was a mistake. Democracy in the Arab world has lead to Libya giving up it's wmd, Lebanons Cedar revolution, Saudi municipal elections, Palestinian elections. A wind of change took place because they witnessed the changes taking place in Iraqi society.


Why bother quoting if you are not going to keep your response in context with it. You seem to be under the impression that grandstanding with unrelated rhetoric will somehow be accepted as a satisfactory response. Besides there is very little to suggest that any of these things you mention could not of been achieved by alternative methods, after all its not strictly necessary to throw a brick through the window when you're hot.

you quote me,
QUOTE
We must not make such a mistake again...New laws after every terrorist atrocity can feed a sense of panic.


you reply,
QUOTE
You can blame the public for raising the expectation of the leadership doing something in proposing ways to protect civilians with new legislation.


The government responding to the publics sense of panic is extremely bad leadership - not to mention extremelt poor analysis of how the government has truly acted. If you believe what you have in fact stated, how can you then justify your continued support of them because all you have acheived with this comment is to raise suspicion of their ability to govern responsibly.

You quote me,
QUOTE
They can also encourage the terrorists because if our response is an ever-more repressive set of laws, they will know that those laws are most likely to impact on communities from which they derive sympathy. We must always strive to preserve the freedoms we seek to defend. You do not beat the enemies of freedom by taking freedom away.


You reply,
QUOTE
Scare mongering. Man you're as bad as Peter Hitchens.


Why is this scaremongering? Read it again, its common sense. Try printing out a copy of your intended responses before you post - cross out every bit of unrelated rhetoric and you will find yourself left largely with a collection of unsupported "irrelevants" and "scaremongering".

A Muslim Community Response To Some Of the Proposed Anti-terrorism Measures Various Article ID: 1242 | 652 Reads

As members of the Muslim community the undersigned individuals and organisations
feel the need to communicate our view regarding some of the recently proposed antiterrorismmeasures in the aftermath of the London bombings, and address statementsmade by the Prime Minister in the past few weeks. The British Muslim community hasalways been a law-abiding community and all its endeavours to create a more just societyhave been entirely peaceful. We fear that recent events are being exploited by somesections in society to demonise legitimate Islamic values and beliefs and hence consider it appropriate to make the following observations:


The term “extremism”, frequently used in the public discourse about religion and terrorism, has no tangible legal meaning or definition and is thus unhelpful and emotive. To equate ‘extremism’ with the aspirations of Muslims for Shariah laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands, as seemed to be misrepresented by the Prime Minister, is inaccurate and disingenuous. It indicates ignorance of what the Shariah is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimise the Muslim community unnecessarily.

The Muslim community in Britain has unequivocally denounced acts of terrorism. However, the right of people anywhere in the world to resist invasion and occupation is legitimate. Therefore the proposal to criminalise ‘justification’ or ‘validation’ of such self defence appears to be intended to stifle discussion about, and support for, such resistance. Thus anyone even verbally opposing the illegal invasion of Iraq, for example, could in future be made out to be justifying and supporting ‘acts of terrorism’ and prosecuted. We are concerned that these proposed measures are intended to prevent the popular opposition witnessed in the run-up to the Iraq war should the United States wish to attack Iran, Syria or any other sovereign nation in the near future.

It is natural for Muslims to feel sympathy with fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world and to desire justice for those of them living under oppression. Many people compare the Israeli reality with South African apartheid and demand a similar solution. To denounce anybody who questions the legitimacy of Israel will be seen as an attempt to silence academic thought and legitimate political expression. If the government hopes to pander to Zionist pressure by condemning and excluding from this country people who are critical of Israeli apartheid, it is
in fact supporting apartheid.

The proposal to ban the non-violent organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir is, in our view, unwarranted, unjust and unwise, and runs counter to all the principles which Western democracies are currently trying to promote abroad. Any disagreement with a political organisation must be expressed through debate not censorship. Whatever objections one may have to someone else’s point of view, we must uphold their right to hold and articulate those views. If it is suggested that any laws have been broken by any individuals or groups then this must be proven by due legal process. Criminalising the mere possession of certain opinions is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies.

The same reasoning applies to the proposal to close mosques if they are arbitrarily defined as being ‘extremist’ or to try and politically influence what may or may not be said during a religious talk. This would amount to a collective punishment of the community and will be likely to create fear and prevent legitimate political discussion within mosques. This repression could lead to the very radical subculture which we all seek to prevent.

The proposal to deport and/or extradite foreign nationals to countries known for gross human rights abuses is abhorrent to a civilized nation, irrelevant of whether or not a diplomatic assurance that deportees will not be mistreated is obtained. This recent move comes across as a cynical attempt to resolve the problem of dealing with those currently under “control orders” after the judiciary found their continued detention without trial to be unlawful. Given that the alleged bombers on 7 July in London were British nationals, such an exploitation of the events to move against foreign nationals as well as unwanted asylum seekers is indeed
shameful.


This list of concerns is not conclusive, but we are putting these issues forward to help prevent a knee-jerk reaction to recent events which would drive a rift between communities in the UK and set the course of British politics onto the slippery slope of intellectual censorship and totalitarianism.

Signed:

1. 1990 Trust
2. Al-Ikhlas Foundation
3. An-Nisa Society
4. Algerian Community in Britain – Supporters of FIS
5. Association of Muslim Lawyers
6. Bangla 2000
7. Cageprisoners
8. Centre of Muslim Affairs
9. Comparative Religious Centre Ltd
10. Crescent International
11. Dr Usama Hasan
12. Forum Against Islamophobia & Racism (FAIR)
13. Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS)
14. Friends of al-Aqsa
15. Hasan al-Thaqafi - Islam Channel
16. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
17. Imam Shakeel Begg - Kent & Lewisham Islamic Centre
18. Innovative Minds
19. International Muslims Organisation
20. Islam Channel
21. Islamic Forum Europe
22. Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC)
23. Islamic Observatory Centre
24. Islamic Party of Britain
25. Mindsprings
26. Muslim Association of Britain (MAB)
27. Muslim Directory
28. New Civilization Foundation
29. Party for Islamic Renewal
30. Prisoners of the West
31. Q-News
32. Racial Attacks & Harassment Monitoring Association (RAHMA)
33. Salam Magazine
34. Sheykh Haitham al-Haddad - Shariah Council UK
35. Sheykh Suliman Gani
36. Stop Political Terror
37. World Islamic Propagation Establishment UK
38. Yvonne Ridley – Political Editor, Islam Channel
39. Ramadhan Foundation

15 August 2005

5.1 We are conscious of increasing concerns amongst Muslim communities of the impact of anti-terrorism legislation and are concerned about the impact this may have on good race relations. As the powers of the ATCS Act are particularly directed at terrorists, with explicit reference to Al-Qaida and the network of terrorist groups associated with it, we believe that it is vital that the Home Office considers the implication of such a policy on Muslim communities in Britain, in particular. We would also point out that any adverse impact on community confidence would be contradictory to the Home Office's public service agreements (PSAs) on increasing confidence, including that of ethnic minority people.

6. Ethnic monitoring of suspects
6.1 We are concerned that the Home Office has not been collecting data, at the very least by race, and ideally, by race and faith. In a response to a parliamentary question (House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 18 November 2003), the Home Secretary stated that this data could only be collated and verified at disproportionate cost.[163]
6.2 The view of the CRE is that we recommend that this cost should be balanced and justified against the damage to community relations resulting from the belief that policies of conscious or unconscious religious profiling of Muslims are standard practice amongst officers involved in counter-terrorism operations.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/j...s/158/15808.htm

You quote me,
QUOTE
"The disastrous decision to invade Iraq has made Britain a more dangerous place.....The reasons given to parliament for joining the invasion were bogus...The dangers of the invasion providing recruits and impetus to terrorist extremists were clear before the war."


you reply,
QUOTE
Ken Clarke is also not stupid in playing the Iraq card against the Labour party as it's a weakness, he couldn't care less about the place. Also, it's dangerous for him to use this as a platform and then realising that pulling out would be far worse than staying in. That's why although intelligent, he's acting like a dumbass.


What specifically do you disagree with and why? And where does he state that we should pull out of Iraq? Must you always react to criticism by making ridiculous and unsupported assumptions? Ken Clarke is not suggesting withdrawal, he's engaged in criticism of the initial desision to invade and their policies regarding the war on terror, because it calls into question the choices the government has made and their ability to lead in the long term interests of the country.

You say,
QUOTE
Terrorists would of found some other damn reason to attack us or fellow Muslims. They don't care about what we do. Only how to destroy us and people who don't agree with them.


Lifted directly, I suspect, from "Team America". The war in Iraq has united otherwise divided muslim extremists and given terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda a boost by raising their structure. We have significantly risen as a potential target - this is undeniable - in fact terrorists have declared as much.

You quote me,
QUOTE
Its true they didn't lie, they "misled", as you have already quoted me as saying, unfortunately to all intents and purpose this is just semantics. But you do concede that the Prime Minister misled parliament, the media and the public.


you reply,
QUOTE
Note to dumbass, mislead doesn't always mean lie. And don't put words into my mouth saying that I somehow concede that the PM mislead which you think in effect means he lied to us.


You will note that I said its true they didn't lie, they misled. But whether they lied or simply misled, it amounts to the same thing the manipulation of the truth.
previously you stated,

QUOTE
Well I agree I never believed the claims of the WMD, we could of come up with a better reason to invade Iraq than to scare the British and American public into believing it.


Who needs to put words into your mouth when scrolling back is so much easier.

You quote me,
QUOTE
While my comment is speculative, you make a direct assertion. The onus is therefore on you to now provide evidence of how the world is a better place post-invasion. Incidently even if you insist on claiming that Iraqi's now living in the midst of near civil war are in theory better off, the fact remains that Iraq is not the World, merely one country. So how exactly, today, is the world a better place as a direct result of the decision to invade Iraq.


After offering a statement akin to an advertisement for the Iraqi tourist bureau, you conclude that,
QUOTE
The world is also better off in the reason that the nation of Iraq isn't directed by one man who could and has, destabilised the area before with his quest for territory. We have now a country dedicated to the process of in which it will gear towards a democracy and on consensus, rather than the arab tradition of brute force.


Well apart from the fact that in reality Iraq is completely dependent on US and UK troops for any semblance of stability, and that the country itself would be more accurately desribed as dedicated to sectarian struggles, you seem to be ignoring the fact that previous to the invasion Saddams ambitions of territorial expansion, if in fact he still retained them, were most definitely no longer a viable threat. As for the regional impact talk to the Saudi Foreign Minister, talk to the Turks, look at Iran and its Nuclear Programme. As for the world impact take a look at oil prices. The world is clearly not a better place than it was prior to invasion and definitely not with regards to our own nations security. Just because the invasion of Iraq provides us with an obligation to usher in democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the invasion was the only path open to us to pursue a better and safe world. And strictly in terms of the war on terror, its hard to see any great achievement other than in providing a focus for the media of an arena of ongoing terrorist activity that didn't previously exist.

you quote me,
QUOTE
If the vast majority of the population had been against the war, which seems likely if they had known then what they now know, then Blair would have been forced to pay attention. No country can go to war without the support of its people and expect to be successful - not in a democracy.


you reply,
QUOTE
Ask the people if they want us to withdraw before the job is done rather than just 'pulling out' and you'll be surprised.


This is an entirely seperate issue, what you're suggesting is like forcing everyone onto a boat, getting lost at sea and then conducting a poll on whether people would like to find land or not. Perhaps a more honest approach would be to conduct a poll on whether given what the public now knows, they would still support the exact same reasons for war. I don't know what the result would be if a poll was conducted on whether or not we should withdraw from Iraq - personally thats not a course of action I feel is realistically open to us, or indeed advisable given the instability of Iraq and how a withdrawal would most certainly see the country descend into civil war - inevitably increasing the suffering of the Iraqi people and threatening the stability of the entire region. However, I do believe that increased UN involvement would be a positive step. A complete withdrawal from Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster, and as much as I dislike the situation we find ourselves in, we are now obliged to stay until such times as democratic and stable government can stand alone or the the UN assumes overall authority. I have never stated otherwise.

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Oct 9 2005, 07:22 PM
Post #15


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



you quote me,
QUOTE
Using this model do you agree that The Blair government subverted democracy by misleading over the issue of WMD's?


you reply,
QUOTE
Nope, because I believe the fault was with intelligence, not with Blair being a liar.


Are you still suggesting that doubts over Saddams WMD and involvement in 9/11 were accurately portrayed by Bush and Blair in their case for war, despite not believing it yourself? Or are you merely suggesting that the intelligence provided by Bush and Blair was at fault and that the intelligence they witheld was purely on the grounds that it was irrelevant with respect to the case they presented?

You say,
QUOTE
Which is now irrelevant, many people regardless of the actions we've taken, they support the idea of a democratic government in Iraq.


I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I suggested is that had the public known then what they now know, then it may have been impossible for Blair to have gained the necessary support to go to war. Its true that its irrelevant to the fact that we are occupying Iraq, that much is obvious. However, that aside, I do believe that Bush and Blair should be held accountable for the decisions that were taken, and that in holding them accountable we will return confidence and credibility to the mission of democratising Iraq, and not only with our own public but with the wider Muslim world.

you previously wrote,
QUOTE
you describe George Galloway as someone as consistent and somewhat perfect, great priorities, get you fucking act together.


you quote me,
QUOTE
Actually I said Robin Cook was not perfect in response to the fact that you had previously mentioned he sold arms to Indonesia and Sierra Leone - in what was clearly an attempt by you to undermine him as one of the major opponents to the Iraq War. I said he was not as consistent as George Galloway - by which I mean't that George Galloway while an opponent to the war on Iraq would also have been opposed to arms deals with Indonesia and Sierra Leone (which I assume he would be although of course I am largely speculating) - ergo he would be consistent on those two issues, where as Robin Cook as you pointed out by the mention of the arms deal was perhaps in conflict on a point of principle. While you may be determined to prove that George Galloway is not consistent, you would be well advised to seek out other avenues for exploration than of course the issues of selling of arms to Indonesia and Sierra Leone and opposition to the invasion of Iraq. But as my point was about Robin Cook it really makes no difference to me either way what your mission is concerning George Galloway, at least in terms of what I've previously said. So really what you say is a complete misrepresentation of what I've previousl commented and if you want to avoid looking like a "dumbass" or "tard" (take your pick) then in the future I suggest you either learn to read properly or simply cease twisting what people say in order to score cheap points.


you reply with,
QUOTE
Ok if you don't want me to be citing Iraq as an example, George Galloways explanation of the Soviet Unions collapse as a catastrophe is more than enough.


Oh, for Gods sake!

you go on to add,
QUOTE
It does point out the hypocrisy of the anti war politicians as much as you claim Blair and his associates to be also of the same nature.


Opponents to the invasion include among others Robin Cook, Ken Clarke, The Archbishop of Canterbury, etc,etc,etc, Oh, and George Galloway. They don't agree on everything, but they did agree that the invasion was wrong - they may have all had different reasons - but they all stand by those reasons today. Blair on the other hand misled the public, as Bush did, over the reasons to go to war. Where is the hipocrisy except where you personally create it by raising completely unrelated issues to the War on Iraq, like Robin Cook selling arms when foreign secretary or Galloways theories on the collapse of the Soviet Union.

you previously said,
QUOTE
Fear? You're saying I use fear?


To which you quote me as replying,
QUOTE
No, I don't. You're not that sophisticated, you merely respond out of fear - which is something entirely different. A brief glance at any of your anti-muslim threads proves that.


you respond,
QUOTE
I'm not fearful of Muslims, I merely want to see Europeans take some measures to ensure once they become a majority, that the institutions and democracy and secularism that we've cultivated isn't immediately extinguished by them. And since Muslim immigrants tend to be more extremist than their counterparts in their home countries, there is some basis to take up some action to ensure our institutions survive.


And you have the cheek to accuse me of scaremongering. I saw this already in another thread, what makes you believe it will meet with any greater success here. Perhaps the best place for it is to be ignored elsewhere.

You quote me as saying,
QUOTE
Now you're just being hysterical. point out to me where exactly I stated in this thread support for someone who supports Bashir Asad, or indeed where I have voiced support for Bashir Asad.


you reply,
QUOTE
I haven't stated you supported Bashir Asad, I stated that anti war protestors like George Galloway who support Casey Sheehans mum, ignore the fact that a person like Asad supported the insurgents who killed Sheehans son.


Well thanks for sharing! Perhaps you can raise the issue in a new thread where it can receive the attention you seek.

Previously you had written,
QUOTE
No one could predict that the insurgency would be that violent.


you then quote me,
QUOTE
And yet they did and it was ignored


you go on to reply,
QUOTE
an insurgency on that scale of violence can never be anticipated.


You then quote an article I posted
QUOTE
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday September 29, 2004
The Guardian

The Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.

The warning, delivered in two classified reports to the White House in January 2003, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council, the same advisory board that warned the Bush administration last month that the violence in Iraq could descend into a civil war.
For full article, visit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1314953,00.html


Without any real attempt to take responsibility for your original statement in context with the article I posted (you do after all have a phenomenal capacity for avoiding the extent of your own ignorance) you instead latch on to an issue in the article, you state,
QUOTE
Yet Iraq hasn't decended into Civil war.


May I remind you that what you originally stated was,
No one could predict that the insurgency would be that violent.
Clearly they did and it was ignored.However to the issue of civil war,

Sunni insurgents, trying to prevent political dominance by the Shiite majority, are killing them in great numbers. Shiite militia and death squads are resisting. Now many ordinary citizens who are caught in the middle aren't waiting to become victims. They're moving to safer areas, creating trickles of internal refugees. "There is an undeclared civil war," Hussein Ali Kamal, head of intelligence at the Ministry of Interior, told Newsweek

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/sept11/dailyUpdate.html

No wonder you are so forgiving of Blairs selective reading of the available data - you do the exact same thing. It doesn't take a majority of Iraqi's to have a civil war, its not something that will be debated and decided upon by referendum.

you quote me,
QUOTE
Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you don't know something, that it doesn't exist. Learn to anticipate.


you reply,
QUOTE
:rolleyes: Don't make the assumption that the worst is always going to happen in Iraq we've been proven wrong on a number of occasions.


My point isn't that the best scenario or the worst scenario should be expected. Its that all scenario's should be anticipated and planned for, which you would know if you took the time to understand what I actually wrote. A failure to anticipate and plan accordingly has been the major failing of post-invasion Iraq, along with the failure to pay heed to critical intelligence, purely on the basis that it didn't paint the picture the Bush/Blair adminisrations preferred to portray or believe. The impatience to go to war with Iraq has been at the expense of sufficient planning - that has ultimately cost many more lives and created far more problems than was strictly necessary. Now while I did not support the war, I now see us as being morally obliged to ensure Iraq's transition to full and lasting democracy, and while I agree with you that assuming the worst will happen is not the answer, neither is blind optimism.

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Teiresias
post Oct 9 2005, 07:59 PM
Post #16


I am Mehul
****

Group: Members
Posts: 340
Joined: 16-August 02
Member No.: 104



In conclusion.

On a global level, the war budget could have supplied all impoverished people worldwide with sufficient food, childhood immunization, HIV/AIDS medicine and clean water and sanitation for two years. (According to the UN and World Water Council estimates)

Its not a great leap to see what this could have mean't in terms of the war on terror. This alone could have been a public relations coup that may have seriously undermined criticism to US foreign policy upon which much of the muslim worlds sympathy for the rhetoric of extremism is directly derived. Instead the invasion of Iraq has added fuel to the propaganda that has now seen Al Qaeda become many Al Qaeda's.
Muslims don't hate our freedom, its the perception they have of US foreign policy that they hate. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as longstanding, even increasing support for what they collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, Pakistan, etc. So when US policy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is not surprisingly seen as anything more than selfserving hipocrisy.
Our greatest weapon in the war on terror remains the goodwill and sense of justice of the typical muslim, and how can we possibly appeal to them if we choose actions that inspire only cynicism and distrust. Rather than creating a climate in which moderate voices are heard and their advice heeded, we have built a platform for extremism, where moderate and fanatic are indistinguishable in their common opposition to US foreign policy.
We give young muslims three choices, either ignore US foreign policy, protest peacefully and be accused of supporting terrorism, or fight. Is it any surprise then that you perceive more and more young muslims embracing extremism in our society.
To combat this we must hold Blair accountable for misleading the public over the case for war - this will give much needed credibility to future efforts, not only in terms of Iraqs transition to full and lasting democracy, but also to our attempts to wage an effective war on terror that steps outside the boundaries of mere rhetoric.
In holding our leaders to account for the choices that they make, we create a climate necessary to revitalising the public trust in our political leaders and the convictions they represent. Without this, how can we realistically expect our model of government to be adopted elsewhere with any degree of success or credibility. Our leaders failure to be held to account has so far undermined the process of democratisation, irrespective of how genuine their intent might have been. If this continues, it will increasingly overshadow our best efforts to guide through the transition, which can only benefit Islamic extremism and be to the detriment of the entire region and our best hopes.



Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Ryan_Liam
post Oct 9 2005, 09:07 PM
Post #17


I need a freakin life
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,586
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE
Its highly relevant and I've already pointed out that it was not an isolated incident, but so there can be no confusion.


It is an isolated incident to drag a man out of the labour party conference in the manner in which the security guards did.

QUOTE
Walter Wolfgang: 'We have been lied to about the war. I dared to speak the truth'


:lol: So governments can never make mistakes on the basis of faulty intelligence? I refuse to believe the UK went to war on a lie.

QUOTE
By Walter Wolfgang

09/30/05 "The Independent" -- -- My case is not important. But what happened to me when I was ejected from the Labour conference - simply for a one-word protest during Jack Straw's speech this week - tells us there is something deeply wrong with the culture of our Government under Tony Blair.

We have been lied to about the war. But not only that. The party has been manipulated so that it has not been allowed to discuss the issue properly.


We have not been lied about the war.

If you need to be reminded, here are good clear examples of why the US/Uk went to war

That Hussein's regime was in violation of United Nations demands for weapons inspections.

That the Hussein regime had developed programs which were intended to lead to the production of weapons of mass destruction;

On the basis that Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions requiring a full accounting of.

If UN regulations cannot and will not be imposed upon by force of arms, then they are worth nothing more than the paper they're printed on.

QUOTE
Indeed, the Labour leaders have got so nervous of criticism that when I shouted the single word "nonsense"- when the Foreign Secretary sought to paper over the issue with smooth words - party officials sent the bouncers in. Even one word of criticism, it seems, was too much.


Irrelevant, the Labour party and the leadership have been cleared of any misgivings by the Hutton inquiry, so like I said, they have nothing to fear from Labour members heckling the leadership about it, with the exception of George Galloway.

QUOTE
I had not intended to heckle, much less to make myself the centre of national attention and a debate about whether free speech still exists in the modern Labour Party. But Jack Straw spoke such nonsense - about Iraq, and about Kosovo - that it pushed me over the edge.


So he thinks the war to help Kosovo Albanians was 'nonsense?' Nice to see where his priorities lie.

QUOTE
Tony Blair is the worst leader the Labour Party has ever had, Ramsay Macdonald included. Mr Blair's instincts are basically those of a Tory. He picked up this cause from the Americans without even analysing it. I suspect that he is too theatrical even to realise that he is lying.Etc.


Again Hutton enquiry cleared the Blair leadership of any wrongdoing in Iraq. His comments are his and his alone, they have no basis in fact.

QUOTE
MORE than 600 people were detained under the Terrorism Act during the Labour party conference, it was reported yesterday.



QUOTE
Anti-Iraq war protesters, anti-Blairite OAPs and conference delegates were all detained by police under legislation that was designed to combat violent fanatics and bombers - even though none of them was suspected of terrorist links


Then blame political correctness, however, I need to remind you that the Houses of Parliament were twice the scene of violent protest, such as the throwing of purple die by fathers of justice, and the storming of Parliament by Otis Ferry when the Fox Hunting debate to ban was in session. So after the 7/7 bombings and the 21/7 attempt to repeat the same thing I don't think that the 'excesses' you claim were anything out of the ordinary.

QUOTE
None of those detained under Section 44 stop-and-search rules in the 2000 Terrorism Act was arrested and no-one was charged under the terrorism laws.


2000 terrorism laws were before 9/11 and the rise of Islamist terrorism across the globe.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2028602005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291424.stm

QUOTE
A group representing 500 Labour politicians, union members and other activists demanded an independent inquiry into the way the party conference was being run in the wake of the "brutal treatment" of Mr Wolfgang.
The Labour Representation Committee claimed there had been intimidation of delegates, allegations of corruption of the democratic process and "blatant gerrymandering" of the conference agenda.
It alleged that emergency resolutions to the conference had been excluded for "spurious" reasons, that delegates received text messages from party officials telling them which way to vote and that speeches had been "planted" by party officials.
Labour MP John McDonnell, chairman of the committee, said: "Enough is enough - we cannot put up with this treatment any longer.
"We need a thorough independent investigation into the whole New Labour culture of intimidation, suppression of dissent and the gerrymandering of conference."


Then allow the process of an inquiry. Why you think I'm against this I don't know. But like I said, with the recent events such as 7/7 and storming of Parliament, I don't see a problem with added security.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2005/...1580806,00.html

QUOTE
Previously I have said that Labour backbenchers not only had safety of numbers on this particular issue, but also the support of their local party's and constituents in how they voted - How can you possibly find this insignificant?


Because so far they've not done any siginificant political action except deride their leader for his actions in Iraq. Actions which, have removed a dictator and turned the country towards democratic governance despite the horrendous violence.

QUOTE
The government can hardly sanction MP's on an issue that splits the party - it could possibly instigate a vote of no confidence - remember the government counted on support from the conservatives on Iraq, a vote of no confidence from within the Labour ranks would have seriously put into doubt conservative support. Wake up!


Yet it didn't happen, a sign that the majority of the Labour party, regardless of their leaders venture into Iraq, still put their faith into the direction of the party.

QUOTE
1) The Attorney General had backed Military action as being legal under International Law. (Claire Short is very specific about this in her reasons for not resigning initially).


So far so good.

QUOTE
2) She was told by Blair that he had persuaded Bush that there must be a resolution on creating a UN mandate on the reconstruction of Iraq where the UN takes a central role.


Need I remind you that this was going to take place, however, UN headquarters were truck bombed and killed the High commissioner. Hence the UN retreated out of Iraq.

QUOTE
3) She resigns because the draft new resolution being discussed at the security council was not giving the UN its promised central role in rebuilding Iraq. She referred to the UK's position on this issue as "totally dishonourable" claiming the Blair government was supporting the US "in trying to bully" the UN security council.


Like I said, diplomacy only goes so far, if there is no military back up to enforce a resolution, then don't expect the said nation to comply with it.

QUOTE
4) She also complains that she learned the detail of the new UN resolution on rebuilding Iraq from BBC news online, when her department was supposed to have had a key role in Iraq's reconstruction.


The new UN resolution, I wonder why that came about, does that have anything to do with the UN truck bombing of the headquarters of the UN mission in Iraq?

QUOTE
Iraq war revelation: There was no full legal advice
Cabinet Secretary admits invasion based on single page of A4
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent
11 March 2005

Britain went to war on the basis of a single piece of paper setting out the legality of invading Iraq, the country's most senior civil servant has revealed.
The Government's case for war appeared to be in tatters last night after the Cabinet Secretary admitted that a parliamentary answer from Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, was the final legal opinion on the case for war. In an astonishing admission, Sir Andrew Turnbull disclosed that no "full" legal advice on an invasion of Iraq has ever existed.
He confirmed that a short parliamentary answer by the Attorney General was the "definitive advice" on the war sent to the Prime Minister and that "there is no other version".
The renewed doubts over the legality of the conflict are a severe setback to Tony Blair, who was hoping that Iraq would fade as a general election issue.
MPs had assumed that the parliamentary answer was a précis of a longer, more detailed legal opinion and ministers had come under intense pressure from the media to publish the "full" advice under the Freedom of Information Act.
The revelation astonished MPs. Sir Andrew was cross examined about the existence of full legal advice in a Commons committee after The Independent revealed Mr Blair may have breached the prime ministerial code by failing to provide the full legal advice to the Cabinet. Yesterday The Independent reported that questions were being raised by MPs about the existence of legal advice.
Charles Kennedy seized on the news and said it showed that the Government's case for war was shambolic. "This is an astonishing revelation which suggests utter confusion at the heart of government. The Prime Minister must now clarify the situation which is undermining public trust," the Liberal Democrat leader said. "He must provide a clear statement about what took place regarding the legal advice. Can it really be true that the legal basis on which we went to war consisted of a parliamentary answer and not a full legal opinion?"
After intense cross-examination by Tony Wright, the Labour chairman of the Public Administration Committee, Sir Andrew admitted: "There is not a longer version of that advice. There is no other version. This is the definitive statement of his views. In his view it was sufficient for his colleagues to be assured that he thought there was a legal basis for military action. It does not purport to be a summary of his advice. It was the definitive advice that he had reached."
Sir Andrew indicated there was not enough time for Lord Goldsmith to prepare a fuller statement because it was required quickly, when it became clear there would be no second resolution in the UN. He said it summarised his views and was not a summary of a larger document. "What he has put forward is the conclusion that he reached as a result of all the thinking he had been doing."
But Sir Andrew added there were "other papers" which the Government would not disclose.
The Attorney General gave a parliamentary answer in the Lords on 17 March 2003 which appears in the Butler report on the intelligence that led to war, on a single page of A4.
The answer says "authority to use force" exists from a combination of the UN resolutions. Lord Goldsmith concluded "the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today".
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman and a senior barrister, said the parliamentary answer could not be described as a legal opinion. It should contain pages of detailed argument and summaries, particularly on an issue such as war. "The written answer provided in the House of Lords could not possibly be described as a legal opinion," he said. "The Cabinet Secretary appears to confirm what many have suspected; that there was no formal opinion recording the Attorney General's change of mind."
The Attorney General did prepare a longer piece of legal advice which he presented to Mr Blair on 7 March. But that advice, believed to be a 13-page paper, is thought not to have given a definitive view on whether war would be legal.
Clare Short, a member of the Cabinet at the time, said the absence of a longer legal opinion meant Mr Blair had taken Britain to war "by deception".
Yesterday the Attorney General wrote to Ms Short, the former international development secretary, saying he did not accept her "allegations [on Tuesday] that I failed to comply with the ministerial code or that I misled the Cabinet".


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/...sp?story=618882

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/AttorneyGeneral.htm

Yes, the independent and stopwar.org are very unbiased sites. Anyway, it's irrelevant as the Government was cleared of lying to go to war.

QUOTE
a par with the previous exams that were in place for their introduction.

CSE's were what people took if they were deemed not capable of taking O'levels. GCSE's replaced both CSE's and O'levels.



QUOTE
You obvioulsy haven't heard about the laws they want to bring in where you can be prosecuted for inspiring religious hatred.You may be forced to curb some of your opinions on Muslims or possibly face prison.


I'm against them for the very reason that it will be harder to criticise the Islamic faith as is my right. Just because I support Labour doesn't mean I support everything it does.

QUOTE
I agree lots of people seem to be free. As you appear to be unfamiliar with the laws we now have, here are some of them.


I am quite familiar with them. However none have seemed to threaten my civil liberties.

QUOTE
The Terrorism Act 2000
Section 44 removed the requirement that the police must have ‘reasonable suspicion’ a crime has, or is about to be, committed before stopping and searching suspects.
The police are entitled to search for articles that might be used in connection with terrorism in a particular area as long as a police officer of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable or higher has authorised the use of these powers.
The use of the power must later be approved by the Home Secretary.
The area can be as large as a city.
The order is made in secret with no court review and no suspicion is required.
This was intended to be used against terrorism suspects but campaigners claim it has been widely used by the police against peace protesters.
This act also deals with ‘proscribed organisations’ and makes it an offence (punishable by up to 10 years in prison) to be a member of or to support certain groups named by the Government.
In effect, this means you can be sent to prison without having committed any terrorist or normal criminal offence.
The act also extends the period of time terrorist suspects can be detained and questioned after arrest without being charged to 7 days.
The approval of a magistrate is still needed for detentions longer than two days.
Other parts of this Act make it illegal:
to incite terrorism abroad (this can be just someone speaking to someone else); and
to possess objects for terrorist purposes (the items themselves may be perfectly harmless).
The act imposes a duty to disclose information of a suspicion that another person has committed a terrorist offence, including money laundering.
The Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001
The Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 was enacted by the Government in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
It is designed to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act which was responsible for the internment (imprisonment without trial) of 7,000 mostly Irish suspects between 1974 and 1992.
Part 4 of the Act allowed for the indefinite detention of foreign nationals without trial (or even being charged with a criminal offence) and has caused much controversy.


Irrelevant, obviously the laws had to be reviewed and changed in accordance to the new threat of Islamist terrorism. 7/7 bombings justified the changes having to be made.

QUOTE
14 foreign nationals were detained under the Act in December 2001 for being ‘suspected international terrorists’ and were neither charged with a crime nor put on trial.


And then released by Charles Clarke under house arrest. You seem to misunderstand the situation in 2001 when the US was attacked and in which 3000 people had been killed, adding to the situation the Afghan invasion and heightened public mood, it's natural for a government to do this.

QUOTE
Unlike people detained for ‘ordinary’ crimes, these detainees were not charged with an offence, did not have the right to know the evidence against them, did not have the right to deny or explain that evidence, and did not have the right to a public jury trial.


And then released by Charles Clarke

QUOTE
In striking down this law, one of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffman, remarked: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."


The same thing was said about terrorism laws against the IRA.

Other Measures
The government is also able to use other laws against those it suspects of terrorism.

QUOTE
The government may extrude British citizens to a country willing to prosecute.


Sheik Omar Bakri for one, I don't see a problem in extraditing a Syrian back to his homeland. Even if he has lived here for 20 years.

QUOTE
The government can also use the Royal Prerogative to take passports away from those it suspects of terrorism.


Which is a good thing, unless you forget that a certain Ethiopian who was a member of the 21/7 bombings had made his way to Italy before he was captured.

QUOTE
Following the London bombings, the government is proposing new laws to combat terrorism and has received the backing of the two other main parties in this effort.
First, the government agreed to set aside the renewal of the controversial ‘Control Orders’ until the New Year.
These orders, in use since early 2005 following the Law Lords striking down of imprisonment without trial laws, restrict the movement of terrorist suspects through electronic tagging, curfews and house arrest.


Good, since 95% of the population will not be targeted by this, it's a welcome change.

QUOTE
Also, it is believed that the recently enacted law outlawing incitement to religious hatred will be used to prosecute Muslim extremists as well as protecting Muslims.


Muslim extremists are the most active fundamental religious element in the country at this present time, don't kid yourself.

QUOTE
Following the attacks, Gordon Brown called for tighter banking controls to stem the flow of terrorist finance and prevent money laundering by terrorist groups.


I don't see this as a bad thing.

QUOTE
The government has now stated that it intends to enact new anti-terrorism legislation relatively quickly.
These new laws are expected to target foreign-born people who preach hate or eulogise terrorist acts and make it easier to keep them out of Britain or expel them if they are already here.


Which is a very good idea. France already does this.

QUOTE
Other laws are likely to create offences of preparing for, training for or inciting acts of terrorism.
One law that has been specifically mentioned is “indirect incitement to terrorism.” It is unclear what this will actually mean.


Brainwashing Muslim youth to carry out acts of martyrdom. There's indirect incitement to terrorism.

QUOTE
BUT, it seems that these new laws would have been almost entirely ineffective at stopping the London attacks.


Laws don't = intelligence gathering, the laws make it easier for intelligence gatherers to prevent attacks, yet not all of them. The Met and MOD have stated this. No one can be 100 % effective against terrorism.

QUOTE
The four were British citizens, they used homemade explosives, and were not wealthy.
Although three of the four visited Pakistan, this is not currently illegal.


Yes, however in Pakistan, any Mosque inciting terrorism or extremism is illegal, wow just like in the UK.

QUOTE
MI5 had investigated one of the men and determined that he was not a threat.
These new laws are only one response to the bombings. Disadvantages with this approach are that: it is a reaction to a threat and can ignore the causes of that threat;


It is actually to analyse the causes of the threat and make the appropiate laws, such as deporting and detaining radical preachers.

QUOTE
the laws may curtail our liberties and unnecessarily target Muslims in a manner that is counterproductive to fighting terrorism.


When Muslims do most of the terrorism, expect them to be targeted more.

QUOTE
Causes
On July 18, 2005, the Royal Institute for International Affairs and the Economic and Social Research Council, released a report that drew links between the bombings and Britain’s decision to join George W. Bush and the U.S.A. in invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The report argues that such action made Britain more likely to be a terrorist target.


:lol:

What they seem to forget is that Islamist extremists will use ANY excuse to justify their terrorism. If it were not Iraq or Afghanistan, it would be Palestine or Checnya.

Afghanistan was supported by the majority of the international community and is widely recognised as a just war. Afghan peoples are welcoming of the Coalition troops in their country which helped kick out the Ultra Othodox Taliban Islamist government which was harbouring Al Queda.

9/11 happened without the US invading or occupying Iraq or Afghanistan, yet the atrocity still happened. It doesn't matter whether we do anything or not. There is always going to be another excuse.

QUOTE
In an ICM/Guardian poll released on July 19, 2005, two thirds of Britons agreed. Another poll released on July 26, 2005, found that 80% of British Muslims thought the Iraq war was a factor leading to the bombings.


80% of Muslims would believe this. Muslims have been repeatedly against any sort of action of conflict, even when it involves liberating their own people, and if Iraq isn't a liberation, then what of Kosovo or Bosnia?

Most Muslims would believe Iraq would be the 'blowback' because of our invasion and their total anti war stance, however, It's pretty laughable since non of the bombers were Iraqi, which would make it more believable since it's their country which is being occupied and there's no shortage of Kurds or Arab Iraqis in the UK for them to carry this out, yet they haven't, says something doesn't it?

QUOTE
Tony Blair’s government says there is no link and that "the terrorists will kill anyone who stands in the way of their own perverse ideology".
The government also sought to link the extremist teachings of some Imams, particularly in Pakistan, to the attacks.


Hit the nail right on the head.

QUOTE
In response, Munir Akram, the Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations, said: “You have to look at British society – what you are doing to the Muslim community and why the Muslim community is not integrating into British society, and try not to externalise the problems Britain faces with regard to race and religious relations.”


This is laughable, the UK has done alot more than any European country to intergrate it's Muslim citizens, even to allow preachers it would deem radical, allow Muslim women to dress according to their values (as they should be allowed to do, with a choice not too) and what price was this paid with? Bombings. Nice victim mentality, but it doesn't justify shit.

QUOTE
At this early stage, it seems that there is not one single cause but a number of factors that must be considered and addressed.


Yes

1) Muslim communities refusing to integrate with the wider community.

2) A closed mentality of the Muslim community in relations to outsiders.

3) A refusal for Muslim leaders to refrain from making every issue involving their constituents a political issue for every problem.

4) A complete an utter failure to reign in radical Islamists who influence the younger population with their hate filled rhetoric.

5) A blame mentality on their own problems being caused by everyone else.

QUOTE
Did You Know?
Since the terrorism attacks of 2001, there has been a 300% increase in the use of police stop and search powers against South Asians.


I see no problem with this, most South East Asians in the UK are, urm, Muslim of faith and radical in outlook, so expect the Police to target them more in the cause of counter terrorism. It's not racist, it saves time money and effort from concerntrating on areas in which terrorist related incidents are lease likely to eminate from.

QUOTE
According to a report by the Islamic Human Rights Commission on July 28, 2005, attacks against Muslims have increased 13-fold since July 7, 2005 and include criminal damage, arson, assault and murder.


The Islamic Human rights commission is a scaremongering victim mentality organisation which fails to blame it's own Islamic leaders on leading the Muslim society at large in the UK properly.

The Islamic organisation should look into the reasons why these attacks have happened, maybe they'll discover that when people abuse their faith to intiate most of the worlds terrorism, there is a backlash.

QUOTE
During the summer of 2004, the BBC conducted a survey in which fictitious applications were made for jobs using applicants with the same qualifications and work experience, but different names. A quarter of the applications by the candidates with traditionally English sounding names were successful in securing an interview, but only 9% of applicants with Muslim names.


Irrelevant. That's down to racism not terrorism. And if you think racism is the cause of the 7/7 bombs, you're a fucking fool. I never saw a Black person blow himself up for race inequality, might of set fire to Brixton, but it's not in the same league as blowing up a train load of people, and killing fellow Muslims in the process.

Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Lord Bitememan
post Oct 9 2005, 09:56 PM
Post #18


Lurker-in-Chief
*******

Group: Moderators
Posts: 3,232
Joined: 11-March 03
From: Detroit, 3rd world corruption with a 1st world economy
Member No.: 281



You two have gone totally off-topic and drown out the thread, so I'm taking your fight over to here.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Ryan_Liam
post Oct 10 2005, 06:46 PM
Post #19


I need a freakin life
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,586
Joined: 27-August 04
Member No.: 768



QUOTE
On a global level, the war budget could have supplied all impoverished people worldwide with sufficient food, childhood immunization, HIV/AIDS medicine and clean water and sanitation for two years. (According to the UN and World Water Council estimates)


Yes, and the disbanding of all militaries and the space programme of the US could do alot more to help the poor etc. But you know what? There is always going to be poor, and there is always going to be Geo Politics, which take more of a precedence.

You seem to ignore that the EU and US devoted around 50 billion to developing countries, canceling of debts, increases of food and medical aid.

QUOTE
Its not a great leap to see what this could have mean't in terms of the war on terror. This alone could have been a public relations coup that may have seriously undermined criticism to US foreign policy upon which much of the muslim worlds sympathy for the rhetoric of extremism is directly derived. Instead the invasion of Iraq has added fuel to the propaganda that has now seen Al Qaeda become many Al Qaeda's.


Irrelevant, Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated, 40 million Muslims under abhorrent regimes are now working towards democratic governance regardless of whether you think the wars were legal or not.

Palestine has had free elections in selecting it's leaders, Lebanon Syrian troops withdrew, Saudi Arabia has held municipal elections, Egypt has allowed for the first time ever to allow a contender for the presidency.

QUOTE
Muslims don't hate our freedom, its the perception they have of US foreign policy that they hate.


Muslims hate the fact they're not as powerful as the West in determining their own futures. The best way then if Muslims don't hate our freedom, is to give them it. Which we are in Afghanistan and Iraq, for the first time ever in Afghanistan, the people directly elected their president, elected a damn Parliament, same for Iraq they elected their own political parties to power for the first time in 50 years.

Blaming everything on the US is an Arab mentality, and it's because they have low self esteem in their own achievements.

QUOTE
The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as longstanding, even increasing support for what they collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, Pakistan, etc.


And withdraw support and what will we get? Islamist tyrannies. Which one do you prefer.

QUOTE
So when US policy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is not surprisingly seen as anything more than selfserving hipocrisy.


Irrelevant with the examples of democratic institutions and elections taking place in parts of the Arab world.

QUOTE
Our greatest weapon in the war on terror remains the goodwill and sense of justice of the typical muslim, and how can we possibly appeal to them if we choose actions that inspire only cynicism and distrust.


Yep, which means democratic institutions are the only way forward in which to counter Islamist radicalism. Hence the cause for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan as a start.

QUOTE
Rather than creating a climate in which moderate voices are heard and their advice heeded, we have built a platform for extremism, where moderate and fanatic are indistinguishable in their common opposition to US foreign policy


But then this is bunk when you declare that the US is percieved to by hypocritical, so any US support for moderate Muslims would be discredited as US propaganda. It's a catch-22 situation.

QUOTE
We give young muslims three choices, either ignore US foreign policy, protest peacefully and be accused of supporting terrorism, or fight.


Or a Fourth option, joining us against the extremists which seek to destroy Islam as it is.

QUOTE
Is it any surprise then that you perceive more and more young muslims embracing extremism in our society.


I don't exactly see more and more Muslims joining the terrorist ranks. They may sympathise with them, but this has been declining, especially in the Middle East because of the situation they see in Iraq. Nice one Al Queda, in stating you're going to liberate the Muslim masses, you massacred thousands with Car Bombs, which drove support away from them. Only in Jordan will you find support remaining in the 60% margin.

QUOTE
To combat this we must hold Blair accountable for misleading the public over the case for war -


Cleared by the Hutton inquiry. Irrelevant. But then again, facts never get in the way of blaming Blair for pretty much everything.

QUOTE
this will give much needed credibility to future efforts, not only in terms of Iraqs transition to full and lasting democracy


I don't see how this will affect Iraqis transistion to democracy. Terrorism will remain regardless of us wrongly kicking out our leaders.

QUOTE
, but also to our attempts to wage an effective war on terror that steps outside the boundaries of mere rhetoric.


Like 'No blood for Oil? Not in my name? Bliar? GWB = Hitler?'

QUOTE
In holding our leaders to account for the choices that they make, we create a climate necessary to revitalising the public trust in our political leaders and the convictions they represent.


We did, it was called the Hutton Enquiry, sorry if you didn't like a public inquiry going against your percieved expectations.

QUOTE
Without this, how can we realistically expect our model of government to be adopted elsewhere with any degree of success or credibility.


So Iraqi and Afghan democracy won't happen because of inquiries into our governments? Isn't that erm, democratic?

QUOTE
Our leaders failure to be held to account has so far undermined the process of democratisation, irrespective of how genuine their intent might have been. If this continues, it will increasingly overshadow our best efforts to guide through the transition, which can only benefit Islamic extremism and be to the detriment of the entire region and our best hopes.


Frankly it hasn't gone to the depths of this, and is very much scaremongering.

QUOTE
Are you still suggesting that doubts over Saddams WMD and involvement in 9/11 were accurately portrayed by Bush and Blair in their case for war, despite not believing it yourself?


Nope, like I said, the reasons to me for war weren't really believable, however, the war in itself and the transformation of Iraq from tyranny to democracy was always justified, and the reasons the Administrations could of taken could of been a route where they didn't have to scare the people into accepting the war.

QUOTE
Or are you merely suggesting that the intelligence provided by Bush and Blair was at fault and that the intelligence they witheld was purely on the grounds that it was irrelevant with respect to the case they presented


I'm saying any faulty intelligence was that, faulty, it wasn't misappropiated or 'sexed up' it was just bad intelligence.

QUOTE
I'm not suggesting otherwise. What I suggested is that had the public known then what they now know, then it may have been impossible for Blair to have gained the necessary support to go to war


But that would of never happened. It's always easy to look in hindsight, but it's irrelevant since the situation as passed to take the necessary action you deem should of been taken.

QUOTE
Its true that its irrelevant to the fact that we are occupying Iraq, that much is obvious. However, that aside, I do believe that Bush and Blair should be held accountable for the decisions that were taken, and that in holding them accountable we will return confidence and credibility to the mission of democratising Iraq, and not only with our own public but with the wider Muslim world.


Well then when they leave office when they come to the end of their terms, then this will be realised. That's democracy for you.

QUOTE
Opponents to the invasion include among others Robin Cook, Ken Clarke, The Archbishop of Canterbury, etc,etc,etc, Oh, and George Galloway. They don't agree on everything, but they did agree that the invasion was wrong - they may have all had different reasons - but they all stand by those reasons today.


And I stand by my reason that the Iraq war was good and justifiable on the basis that

QUOTE
Blair on the other hand misled the public, as Bush did, over the reasons to go to war.


The Hutton enquiry cleared Blair of any misgivings of lying or misleading, which is the same as lieing, to the public over the war.

QUOTE
Where is the hipocrisy except where you personally create it by raising completely unrelated issues to the War on Iraq, like Robin Cook selling arms when foreign secretary or Galloways theories on the collapse of the Soviet Union.


I was telling you about their own inconsistencies in comparison to the leaders inconsistencies concerning Iraq.

QUOTE
And you have the cheek to accuse me of scaremongering. I saw this already in another thread, what makes you believe it will meet with any greater success here. Perhaps the best place for it is to be ignored elsewhere.


I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to state my reasons. If you believe all Muslims are victims and somehow we're all to blame for the terrorism eminating from Islam in the cause of politicising it. Then you're free to do so.

QUOTE
Clearly they did and it was ignored.However to the issue of civil war,


It wasn't, you can predict high levels of violence, whether it happens or not is the issue.

QUOTE
Sunni insurgents, trying to prevent political dominance by the Shiite majority, are killing them in great numbers. Shiite militia and death squads are resisting. Now many ordinary citizens who are caught in the middle aren't waiting to become victims.


Sunni spokesman sees role as Iraq's "Gerry Adams"

An ambivalence toward the guerrillas' violence has irritated officials of the U.S.-led coalition. But Mutlak does agree the fighting should end: "The problem is it doesn't work," he said.

And he is ready to work with the Americans against al Qaeda.

Yet, as in Belfast, making democracy work across sectarian schism is fraught; Mutlak is uncompromising in his disdain for many opponents and his belief the Sunnis must defend themselves.

Exile or death will be their fate, he said, if the Shi'ite Islamist parties now in power are returned in December.

"They will not leave any of us in Iraq," Mutlak said. "We will either have to be outside Iraq -- or under the earth."

But, citing secular former prime minister Iyad Allawi -- another former Baathist -- as one Shi'ite politician he could work with, Mutlak said an Iraqi peace process was possible.

"We must find a political solution," he said. "Everybody is getting tired in Iraq."


http://www.almendhar.com/english_6824/news.aspx

Baghdad – Sheikh Zakaria Mohamed Issa Al Tamimi, deputy Secretary-General of the Supreme Council for Da'wa, Guidance and Fatwa (a Sunni Salafi gathering), announced that the declaration of war against Shiaas on behalf of Abu Mus'ab Al Zarqawi, head of al Qaeda Organization in Iraq is "a rejected matter".

QUOTE
They're moving to safer areas, creating trickles of internal refugees. "There is an undeclared civil war," Hussein Ali Kamal, head of intelligence at the Ministry of Interior, told Newsweek


Not as bad as people claim, this was also stated in an Iraqi survey in relation to the constitution.

A majority of Iraqis have faith in the draft constitution, according to a new survey.
Iraqis will decide whether they like or dislike the constitution in a referendum scheduled for October 15.
The survey, by the Iraqi Center for International Development and Dialogue, covers 15 out of the country’s 18 provinces and includes 3,684 respondents.
More than two thirds say they will vote ‘yes’ for the constitution and only 10% say they would turn the draft down.
However, the survey shows different results for different parts of the country.
Iraqi Kurds are among the most supportive of the draft (93%) followed by the majority Shiite provinces in the south (91%).
In Baghdad, a mixed city, only 53% of respondents say they are happy with the draft.
Despite the wide-coverage, the survey excludes three mainly Sunni-inhabited provinces mainly due to ongoing violence and military operations.
It is believed that resistance to the draft is fiercest in these three provinces. If the constitution is rejected by two-thirds majority in them, it will not have the force of law.
The survey reveals mixed results in central provinces, the heart of a ferocious anti-U.S. and government rebellion.
Of those supporting the constitution only 32% say they are happy with the text in its entirety and 55% say they accept most of it.
The study shows that more than two-thirds intend to take part in the referendum and only 3% say they will boycott it.
The survey is the most comprehensive study of public opinion vis-à-vis the constitution as it questions 3,684 adults and comes just a week before the referendum.
Opinion regarding federalism is mixed and varies from one part of the country to another.
The study reveals that only 48% back the establishment of a federal system of government while 37% reject it.
But federalism gets the largest backing in Kurdish areas with 99% of Kurdish respondents approving of the system.
Support for application of Islamic Shariaa or jurisdiction is overwhelming across the country.
More than 90% of respondents want Islam to be either the only or the principal source of legislation.
Any rights for women – as generally stipulated by the constitution – should be within what the Islamic Shariaa allows, the respondents say.
More than 85% say any rights given to women should not contradict Islam, the survey says.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/sept11/dailyUpdate.html

QUOTE
No wonder you are so forgiving of Blairs selective reading of the available data - you do the exact same thing.


:lol: And you don't? What was it that you just shown as an example of 'Iraq's impending explosion'

QUOTE
It doesn't take a majority of Iraqi's to have a civil war, its not something that will be debated and decided upon by referendum.


Even though the majority of Iraqis have worked hard to make sure a civil war doesn't become apparent?

BAGHDAD, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Iraqis are exhausted by the country's descent into chaos and most pin their hopes on a new constitution as a first step toward order, the director of one of Iraq's few opinion polling agencies said on Tuesday.
Mehdi Hafedh of the Iraqi Centre for Development and International Dialogue said his latest poll showed support for the draft constitution going into a vote on Oct. 15 was widespread -- even in areas where Sunni Arab groups fighting a bloody campaign to derail the new charter are strong.

"The Iraqi people want to finalise the political process as soon as possible ... They want to establish a normal government and institutions," Hafedh said in an interview in Baghdad.

"Iraqis want this situation to end. It is untenable."

Hafedh's non-profit organisation, funded partially by the United Nations, has conducted two opinion polls of Iraqis in the last several months, a groundbreaking effort in a country where politics has been shadowed by fear for decades.
Dissenting political views could quickly bring death under Saddam Hussein, whose secret police doled out brutal punishment to those who opposed his rule.
U.S. troops ousted Saddam in 2003, but sectarian turmoil has kept people on edge. Some elements of the insurgency by Sunni Arab groups have targeted civilians in the Shi'ite majority, while Sunnis accuse the Shi'ite-led government of its own abuses.
Against this violent backdrop, Hafedh has sought to figure out what Iraqis of all sects and ethnic backgrounds think of their country's future as it heads into the constitutional vote and an election for a new government in December.
The draft constitution is now almost certain to pass after Shi'ite groups used their majority in parliament to push through new rules designed to stymie opposition. However, the rules may be reviewed after criticism from the United Nations.
Hafedh, who was minister of planning under former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, said it nevertheless appeared to have the support of most Iraqis.

"The part that surprised me was the percentage of supporters for the referendum. I didn't expect that," he said.

STRONG SUPPORT

Hafedh's poll of 3,625 Iraqis between Sept 14-19 showed 79 percent in favour of the new constitution against eight percent opposed. The remainder did not answer the question.
While support was particularly high in the northern Kurdish areas and southern regions dominated by Shi'ites, Hafedh said it also ran at over 50 percent in central provinces known as the heartland of Sunni Arab unrest -- a sign, he said, that the Sunni-Shi'ite split was not as wide as many fear.

"This is exaggerated by political elites who are seeking power and by Western media and analysts," Hafedh said.

"If you go down to the streets, you can't tell who is Sunni and who is Shi'ite. We are all mixed."

As further evidence for this view, Hafedh said most of those voting "no" on the constitution cited reasons ranging from Iraq's lack of sovereignty to its poor security while far fewer cited explicit political concerns over the document.
Hafedh conceded it was sometimes difficult to gauge the precise political views of Iraq's voters, and that many poll respondents may have be influenced by religious leaders who have called for support for the constitution.
But he said his organisaton's 45 pollsters were well trained and he was confident that the results would be accurate.

"People feel they are now free and it is not a problem if they express their opinions freely," he said. "I feel in general this is a lot of progress."


http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/CrisesArti...oryId=QUI438037

QUOTE
My point isn't that the best scenario or the worst scenario should be expected. Its that all scenario's should be anticipated and planned for


Which is expectation in itself.

QUOTE
A failure to anticipate and plan accordingly has been the major failing of post-invasion Iraq


So developing a political process and alongside this building up Iraqi security and the economy whilst holding back the insurgents, so that in the long term the Iraqi government can eventually regain hold over the state, it's institutions and it's people is no sense of a plan in the slightest?

QUOTE
, along with the failure to pay heed to critical intelligence, purely on the basis that it didn't paint the picture the Bush/Blair adminisrations preferred to portray or believe.


:rolleyes: Give this 'they lied' a break, for the worst part it was inaccurate intelligence on their part. This doesn't surmount to lying.

QUOTE
The impatience to go to war with Iraq has been at the expense of sufficient planning - that has ultimately cost many more lives and created far more problems than was strictly necessary.


QUOTE
Now while I did not support the war, I now see us as being morally obliged to ensure Iraq's transition to full and lasting democracy, and while I agree with you that assuming the worst will happen is not the answer, neither is blind optimism.


Where have I been the 'blind optitmist?' If you knew anything that I had written you would of known that I have been critical of Irans interference without any Western governments trying to adequately prevent it. However, just because I like to highlight the progress Iraqis are making doesn't make me 'the blind optimist'





Top
User is online!PMEmail Poster
Quote Post

Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 15th June 2006 - 04:25 AM