By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Interesting again in his speech, about the need for the Liberals and Labour to form some form of Progressive Alliance, that the party needs rebooting from the top to bottom
Labour are missing a massive trick by totally ignoring him, as he is the only one that seems to cut straight through the rubbish and speak with such clarity on every issue - not hard to see why he was able to get elected and make real change to the country.
They knew full well what they were doing. You don't kill 7000 people in a few weeks, without knowing you will do that.
I fully stand by what I say. I'd throw the same accusation at Joe, and any who have downvoted me.
To tell someone accusingly "You clearly don't care that civilians were murdered in their hundreds of thousands because of his decision to send us to war" when that obviously wasn't what he meant or said at all; and then go on to describe him + all others who downvoted you for that comment + Stokie (who was just trying to get facts straight) as "apologist(s) for mass murder" - is disgraceful abuse, beyond the pale.
To tell someone accusingly "You clearly don't care that civilians were murdered in their hundreds of thousands because of his decision to send us to war" when that obviously wasn't what he meant or said at all; and then go on to describe him + all others who downvoted you for that comment + Stokie (who was just trying to get facts straight) as "apologist(s) for mass murder" - is disgraceful abuse, beyond the pale.
Grow up. Joe has posted numerous things lauding Blair and downplaying Iraq. Sorry for caring about civilians being slaughtered, and sorry you don't care.
I'm sure you'd all have the same opinions if Britain was Iraq, and members of your family had been blown up by an errant (or on target) American bomb or bullet.
Grow up. Joe has posted numerous things lauding Blair and downplaying Iraq. Sorry for caring about civilians being slaughtered, and sorry you don't care.
I'm sure you'd all have the same opinions if Britain was Iraq, and members of your family had been blown up by an errant (or on target) American bomb or bullet.
I bloody do care & so I'm sure do the others; it's your entrenched, one-sided, abusive stance that's the problem here. The evidence on this thread alone is that you're totally incapable of debating without using disgusting, unjustified, ad hominem smears.
I bloody do care & so I'm sure do the others; it's your entrenched, one-sided, abusive stance that's the problem here. The evidence on this thread alone is that you're totally incapable of debating without using disgusting, unjustified, ad hominem smears.
I bloody do care & so I'm sure do the others; it's your entrenched, one-sided, abusive stance that's the problem here. The evidence on this thread alone is that you're totally incapable of debating without using disgusting, unjustified, ad hominem smears.
Don't be silly.
I haven't got into Blair and Iraq on this thread but it's a stain on our history. Everything from start to finish involved civilians dying.
I haven't got into Blair and Iraq on this thread but it's a stain on our history. Everything from start to finish involved civilians dying.
Of course it is a stain.
That very obviously does *not* mean people who are just trying to get the facts straight are apologists for mass murder. It's just disingenuous and downright abusive to suggest they are. I shouldn't even need to explain this.
Grow up. Joe has posted numerous things lauding Blair and downplaying Iraq. Sorry for caring about civilians being slaughtered, and sorry you don't care.
I'm sure you'd all have the same opinions if Britain was Iraq, and members of your family had been blown up by an errant (or on target) American bomb or bullet.
You care about civilians being slaughtered so much that just a few weeks ago you were giving equal blame to the Bosnian Muslims for the Srebrenica massacre.
I’ve never seen you once post about the innocent civilians being gassed by Assad or the 160,000 Palestinian refugees in Yarmouk bombed by Assad.
Your care for innocent civilians only ever seems to extend to those killed by the west.
Edit. Downvoted by an apologist for antisemites who spends his Friday nights alone on his laptop barking at the moon, a conspiracy theorist who is an apologist for Assad and Putin and a TWTD’s angriest man who would downvote me if I said that Ipswich play in Blue. I‘m upsetting all the right people.
That very obviously does *not* mean people who are just trying to get the facts straight are apologists for mass murder. It's just disingenuous and downright abusive to suggest they are. I shouldn't even need to explain this.
*Edited for typo
[Post edited 22 Feb 2020 17:13]
What else do you call defending the actions of a state that killed masses of civilians? It's called mitigation in legal terms; yes they did it, but they didn't know they were doing it. Bullsh1t. The US isn't dumb. At best it's wilfully negligent. And it involves 100k+ civilians dying. On what level can you call that accidental?
If I run 100 people over in my car today, and tell you I was just trying to get to work, would you believe me?
That very obviously does *not* mean people who are just trying to get the facts straight are apologists for mass murder. It's just disingenuous and downright abusive to suggest they are. I shouldn't even need to explain this.
*Edited for typo
[Post edited 22 Feb 2020 17:13]
You can of course not argue the toss over significant and criminal loss of civilian life.
What else do you call defending the actions of a state that killed masses of civilians? It's called mitigation in legal terms; yes they did it, but they didn't know they were doing it. Bullsh1t. The US isn't dumb. At best it's wilfully negligent. And it involves 100k+ civilians dying. On what level can you call that accidental?
If I run 100 people over in my car today, and tell you I was just trying to get to work, would you believe me?
You seem to be replying to the wrong post, as I clearly stated the war was a stain but pointed out that there's no excuse for calling people trying to get the facts straight "apologists for mass murder".
You seem to be replying to the wrong post, as I clearly stated the war was a stain but pointed out that there's no excuse for calling people trying to get the facts straight "apologists for mass murder".
But that's what StokieBlue is. I'm not sure you follow the argument TBH.
What else do you call defending the actions of a state that killed masses of civilians? It's called mitigation in legal terms; yes they did it, but they didn't know they were doing it. Bullsh1t. The US isn't dumb. At best it's wilfully negligent. And it involves 100k+ civilians dying. On what level can you call that accidental?
If I run 100 people over in my car today, and tell you I was just trying to get to work, would you believe me?
“ What else do you call defending the actions of a state that killed masses of civilians? ”
Remind me of your username again? Who did you used to have a photograph of as your avatar?
But that's what StokieBlue is. I'm not sure you follow the argument TBH.
Can you please stop calling me an apologist.
You're inability to separate facts from personal feelings is the issue here.
I've repeatedly said the war was wrong as were the casualties but that doesn't mean they were deliberately targeted. The number would have been far higher if they were and what would be the reason to do so?
You can't seem to separate intent from the horrible result.
We agree it was wrong and a stain. You seem to want to make it more, a deliberate act and malevolent act where it mattered as much to kill civilians as topple Saddam.
I do also understand your point on the numbers and that they knew civilians were dying and going to die but I still don't think that means they deliberately targeted malls full of civilians. It's the result of a huge mistake they made which should be highlighted as you have but it shouldn't be confused with the facts. They simply messed up in a huge way and the results have been awful.
I think you’re overestimating Blair’s legacy and/or underestimating Blair’s own conviction that centrism is the way forward.
I’ll concede that Blair is electorally smart and understands the way to the ballot box but I think the same about Dominic Cummings. You’d be surprised how much I respect their grasp of the underlying problem. But ultimately neither are the way forward.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
