The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Spin that you vile little man.
Page:
Actually, I was going to push for you to answer the questions raised, but I'm guessing you're not going to. Not that it detracts from your opinion, but I will repeat what I've already said; you can't expect to convince many people of the truth of your beliefs by avoiding answering honest questions.
Belldandy wrote:
> Want to try quitting the double standard Light ? Anyone who posts
> against what you say has to provide evidence, yet you post with none
> !
>
> You think what you think, I'll think what I think.
As far as I'm aware, whenever I'm asked for evidence, I provide it. I also provide the reasons behind my conclusions. If you can show me otherwise, I'll be happy to correct that. But otherwise, this 'double standard' only exists in your head.
You rarely give evidence or reasoning. Hence I push for evidence, or at least the logic behind your thinking.
You are of course entitled to think what you want, but I'm entitled to ask why you think it. And though you're getting better at answering those type of questions, there is still a tendency of yours to expect people to accept what you say without question. At the very least, you betray your annoyance at being quesioned.
> Want to try quitting the double standard Light ? Anyone who posts
> against what you say has to provide evidence, yet you post with none
> !
>
> You think what you think, I'll think what I think.
As far as I'm aware, whenever I'm asked for evidence, I provide it. I also provide the reasons behind my conclusions. If you can show me otherwise, I'll be happy to correct that. But otherwise, this 'double standard' only exists in your head.
You rarely give evidence or reasoning. Hence I push for evidence, or at least the logic behind your thinking.
You are of course entitled to think what you want, but I'm entitled to ask why you think it. And though you're getting better at answering those type of questions, there is still a tendency of yours to expect people to accept what you say without question. At the very least, you betray your annoyance at being quesioned.
Want to try quitting the double standard Light ? Anyone who posts against what you say has to provide evidence, yet you post with none !
You think what you think, I'll think what I think.
You think what you think, I'll think what I think.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Past funding would mean nothing IF there wasn't evidence similar is
> happening right now.
Oh? What evidence? Could you provide some please?
>
>
> No one is even handed, by our very nature, anyone who claims to be
> even handed is a liar and what they say should be treated with a
> pinch of salt. No one is unbiased, thats one of the whole problems
> with the war. People have this strange idea that their government,
> their media, will give the truth, but that truth is subjective and
> can't be found on either side in a conflict, the real truth is lost
> in a middle ground, in fact the only trurth of any war is that people
> will die.
And yet you're staunchly pro war. If the fact that people die is the only truth of it, why are you so keen to see this happen?
Anyway, it's nice of you to admit that you're one sided, and thus incapable of seeing things objectively. True, everyone has their bias'. But that is no reason to pander to them without bothering to think.
>
> Wrong, I don't even mention patriotism, patriotism is a love of one's
> country, not one's government. Goerring was wrong, hence you're wrong
> as well. I said the motives for some anti war groups are
> questionable, I don't say ALL of the groups are like this, just some,
> namely Stop The War Coalition - unfortunately many legitimate groups
> aligned themselves with this group for some stupid reason.
Where is your evidence that the stop the war coalition is quesionable? You're saying this an awful lot, but I've yet to see anything beyond your word that it is true.
Okay, so Goerring was wrong? How come then the US government are now basically equating anti-war feeling with a lack of patriotism? Are you denying that you have tried to say that anti-war is equal to anti-government, or pro-enemy?
>
> It was live, and from the way the audience constantly bombarded her
> with questions it was obvious the BBC producer had hoped for a
> different outcome to what he got. I don't think even the BBC has the
> nerve to cut a live transmission...and in the past I have said
> sections of the BBC are, which with the Hutton Enquiry and the FAC
> uncovering deep divides within the corporation, that seems to be
> true.
So the BBC are only biased when they disagree with you? Why are you willing to believe them when their reports agree with you?
>
> Do you think that the concerns of the anti war movement dismissed by
> yourself, namely that the war would degenerate into a situation
> whereby the coalition would be an unwelcome occupying force
> suffering
> repeated terrorist attacks, were legitimate?
>
> Of course that is a legitimate concern, if some anti war people
> actually listened to the public briefings given by the Pentagon and
> the MOD before the war then they'd have known it was a concern. As it
> is we're not at that stage yet, only a small minority want us out,
> and there is still time to remove that minority if they persist in
> attacking forces. Their killing of a high profile Iraqi cleric with
> the car bomb in Najaf has backfired on them, it's galvanised anti
> Saddam feeling and notice that blame is not being hoisted onto the
> coalition, it's all on the supporters of Saddam. Whilst things
> admittedly look grim at the moment, I think 5 more Americans were
> killed today as well as 1 Iraqi police officer in a car bombing in
> Baghdad, the situation may well be at a turning point, for the better
> hopefully.
Eh? If some anti war people listened to the Pentagon? But the Pentagon was dismissing those anti-war claims. Still, for all that qualification (you seem to be trying to say that anything the anti-war camp said that the US and UK are now saying, was actually said by the US and UK beforehand)
You say a small minority; where is your evidence for this? For what it's worth, I agree with you on that point, but I'd like to see your reasons for this belief.
>
>
> Anyone with a TV or who read a newspaper could see evidence Light, I
> know it was true, did you kind of miss the countless live footage of
> Saddam's statues being toppled, civilians pointing out to coalition
> troops the location of Iraqi forces, the uprising in Basra, the
> defacing of al lthe symbols of the regime, and much more...
Yes; that was AFTER Saddam was toppled. Maybe I misread what you wrote, but you seemed to be saying that it was all happening beforehand. Could you provide some evidence of that?
Also, we saw the civilians marching. We're also seeing mass demonstrations now. You're saying the former was a majority and the latter a minority. How do you know? You've tried to claim BBC bias, but Sky (owned by the pro-war Murdoch) and CNN (owned by the pro-war Ted Turner) are reporting the demonstrations too. WHat evidence do you have that one is composed of the majority of Iraqi's and one of a minority?
>
> Past funding would mean nothing IF there wasn't evidence similar is
> happening right now.
Oh? What evidence? Could you provide some please?
>
>
> No one is even handed, by our very nature, anyone who claims to be
> even handed is a liar and what they say should be treated with a
> pinch of salt. No one is unbiased, thats one of the whole problems
> with the war. People have this strange idea that their government,
> their media, will give the truth, but that truth is subjective and
> can't be found on either side in a conflict, the real truth is lost
> in a middle ground, in fact the only trurth of any war is that people
> will die.
And yet you're staunchly pro war. If the fact that people die is the only truth of it, why are you so keen to see this happen?
Anyway, it's nice of you to admit that you're one sided, and thus incapable of seeing things objectively. True, everyone has their bias'. But that is no reason to pander to them without bothering to think.
>
> Wrong, I don't even mention patriotism, patriotism is a love of one's
> country, not one's government. Goerring was wrong, hence you're wrong
> as well. I said the motives for some anti war groups are
> questionable, I don't say ALL of the groups are like this, just some,
> namely Stop The War Coalition - unfortunately many legitimate groups
> aligned themselves with this group for some stupid reason.
Where is your evidence that the stop the war coalition is quesionable? You're saying this an awful lot, but I've yet to see anything beyond your word that it is true.
Okay, so Goerring was wrong? How come then the US government are now basically equating anti-war feeling with a lack of patriotism? Are you denying that you have tried to say that anti-war is equal to anti-government, or pro-enemy?
>
> It was live, and from the way the audience constantly bombarded her
> with questions it was obvious the BBC producer had hoped for a
> different outcome to what he got. I don't think even the BBC has the
> nerve to cut a live transmission...and in the past I have said
> sections of the BBC are, which with the Hutton Enquiry and the FAC
> uncovering deep divides within the corporation, that seems to be
> true.
So the BBC are only biased when they disagree with you? Why are you willing to believe them when their reports agree with you?
>
> Do you think that the concerns of the anti war movement dismissed by
> yourself, namely that the war would degenerate into a situation
> whereby the coalition would be an unwelcome occupying force
> suffering
> repeated terrorist attacks, were legitimate?
>
> Of course that is a legitimate concern, if some anti war people
> actually listened to the public briefings given by the Pentagon and
> the MOD before the war then they'd have known it was a concern. As it
> is we're not at that stage yet, only a small minority want us out,
> and there is still time to remove that minority if they persist in
> attacking forces. Their killing of a high profile Iraqi cleric with
> the car bomb in Najaf has backfired on them, it's galvanised anti
> Saddam feeling and notice that blame is not being hoisted onto the
> coalition, it's all on the supporters of Saddam. Whilst things
> admittedly look grim at the moment, I think 5 more Americans were
> killed today as well as 1 Iraqi police officer in a car bombing in
> Baghdad, the situation may well be at a turning point, for the better
> hopefully.
Eh? If some anti war people listened to the Pentagon? But the Pentagon was dismissing those anti-war claims. Still, for all that qualification (you seem to be trying to say that anything the anti-war camp said that the US and UK are now saying, was actually said by the US and UK beforehand)
You say a small minority; where is your evidence for this? For what it's worth, I agree with you on that point, but I'd like to see your reasons for this belief.
>
>
> Anyone with a TV or who read a newspaper could see evidence Light, I
> know it was true, did you kind of miss the countless live footage of
> Saddam's statues being toppled, civilians pointing out to coalition
> troops the location of Iraqi forces, the uprising in Basra, the
> defacing of al lthe symbols of the regime, and much more...
Yes; that was AFTER Saddam was toppled. Maybe I misread what you wrote, but you seemed to be saying that it was all happening beforehand. Could you provide some evidence of that?
Also, we saw the civilians marching. We're also seeing mass demonstrations now. You're saying the former was a majority and the latter a minority. How do you know? You've tried to claim BBC bias, but Sky (owned by the pro-war Murdoch) and CNN (owned by the pro-war Ted Turner) are reporting the demonstrations too. WHat evidence do you have that one is composed of the majority of Iraqi's and one of a minority?
Light wrote:
> However, using the logic you used to get out of Goatboy's earlier
> point, that was a different time with different rules. Under that
> logic, past funding means nothing, correct? It's only the here and
> now.
Past funding would mean nothing IF there wasn't evidence similar is happening right now.
> How come you're willing to forgive past actions governments you
> support, but you'll readily dredge up the past if it fits? Don't you
> accept that you're not being even-handed?
No one is even handed, by our very nature, anyone who claims to be even handed is a liar and what they say should be treated with a pinch of salt. No one is unbiased, thats one of the whole problems with the war. People have this strange idea that their government, their media, will give the truth, but that truth is subjective and can't be found on either side in a conflict, the real truth is lost in a middle ground, in fact the only trurth of any war is that people will die.
> Fair enough. So it's desperate; that doesn't actually change the
> point though; Goerring first mention the idea of equating anti-war
> feeling to a lack of patriotism. And you are comparing anti-war
> feeling to a lack of patriotism.
Wrong, I don't even mention patriotism, patriotism is a love of one's country, not one's government. Goerring was wrong, hence you're wrong as well. I said the motives for some anti war groups are questionable, I don't say ALL of the groups are like this, just some, namely Stop The War Coalition - unfortunately many legitimate groups aligned themselves with this group for some stupid reason.
> This would be the same BBC that you have repeatedly accused of being
> anti-war and anti-government? Surely they wouldn't have broadcast
> that program if they were as anti-government as you've claimed?
It was live, and from the way the audience constantly bombarded her with questions it was obvious the BBC producer had hoped for a different outcome to what he got. I don't think even the BBC has the nerve to cut a live transmission...and in the past I have said sections of the BBC are, which with the Hutton Enquiry and the FAC uncovering deep divides within the corporation, that seems to be true.
> Do you think that the concerns of the anti war movement dismissed by
> yourself, namely that the war would degenerate into a situation
> whereby the coalition would be an unwelcome occupying force suffering
> repeated terrorist attacks, were legitimate?
Of course that is a legitimate concern, if some anti war people actually listened to the public briefings given by the Pentagon and the MOD before the war then they'd have known it was a concern. As it is we're not at that stage yet, only a small minority want us out, and there is still time to remove that minority if they persist in attacking forces. Their killing of a high profile Iraqi cleric with the car bomb in Najaf has backfired on them, it's galvanised anti Saddam feeling and notice that blame is not being hoisted onto the coalition, it's all on the supporters of Saddam. Whilst things admittedly look grim at the moment, I think 5 more Americans were killed today as well as 1 Iraqi police officer in a car bombing in Baghdad, the situation may well be at a turning point, for the better hopefully.
> Okay then; you're asserting that there was obvious anti-Saddam
> feeling in the closing days of the way. I admit that I knew nothing
> of that. So could you provide me with some evidence of it.
Anyone with a TV or who read a newspaper could see evidence Light, I know it was true, did you kind of miss the countless live footage of Saddam's statues being toppled, civilians pointing out to coalition troops the location of Iraqi forces, the uprising in Basra, the defacing of al lthe symbols of the regime, and much more...
> However, using the logic you used to get out of Goatboy's earlier
> point, that was a different time with different rules. Under that
> logic, past funding means nothing, correct? It's only the here and
> now.
Past funding would mean nothing IF there wasn't evidence similar is happening right now.
> How come you're willing to forgive past actions governments you
> support, but you'll readily dredge up the past if it fits? Don't you
> accept that you're not being even-handed?
No one is even handed, by our very nature, anyone who claims to be even handed is a liar and what they say should be treated with a pinch of salt. No one is unbiased, thats one of the whole problems with the war. People have this strange idea that their government, their media, will give the truth, but that truth is subjective and can't be found on either side in a conflict, the real truth is lost in a middle ground, in fact the only trurth of any war is that people will die.
> Fair enough. So it's desperate; that doesn't actually change the
> point though; Goerring first mention the idea of equating anti-war
> feeling to a lack of patriotism. And you are comparing anti-war
> feeling to a lack of patriotism.
Wrong, I don't even mention patriotism, patriotism is a love of one's country, not one's government. Goerring was wrong, hence you're wrong as well. I said the motives for some anti war groups are questionable, I don't say ALL of the groups are like this, just some, namely Stop The War Coalition - unfortunately many legitimate groups aligned themselves with this group for some stupid reason.
> This would be the same BBC that you have repeatedly accused of being
> anti-war and anti-government? Surely they wouldn't have broadcast
> that program if they were as anti-government as you've claimed?
It was live, and from the way the audience constantly bombarded her with questions it was obvious the BBC producer had hoped for a different outcome to what he got. I don't think even the BBC has the nerve to cut a live transmission...and in the past I have said sections of the BBC are, which with the Hutton Enquiry and the FAC uncovering deep divides within the corporation, that seems to be true.
> Do you think that the concerns of the anti war movement dismissed by
> yourself, namely that the war would degenerate into a situation
> whereby the coalition would be an unwelcome occupying force suffering
> repeated terrorist attacks, were legitimate?
Of course that is a legitimate concern, if some anti war people actually listened to the public briefings given by the Pentagon and the MOD before the war then they'd have known it was a concern. As it is we're not at that stage yet, only a small minority want us out, and there is still time to remove that minority if they persist in attacking forces. Their killing of a high profile Iraqi cleric with the car bomb in Najaf has backfired on them, it's galvanised anti Saddam feeling and notice that blame is not being hoisted onto the coalition, it's all on the supporters of Saddam. Whilst things admittedly look grim at the moment, I think 5 more Americans were killed today as well as 1 Iraqi police officer in a car bombing in Baghdad, the situation may well be at a turning point, for the better hopefully.
> Okay then; you're asserting that there was obvious anti-Saddam
> feeling in the closing days of the way. I admit that I knew nothing
> of that. So could you provide me with some evidence of it.
Anyone with a TV or who read a newspaper could see evidence Light, I know it was true, did you kind of miss the countless live footage of Saddam's statues being toppled, civilians pointing out to coalition troops the location of Iraqi forces, the uprising in Basra, the defacing of al lthe symbols of the regime, and much more...
Belldandy wrote:
> I don't care where anti-war funding theories come from, it proved true
> in the Cold War when MI5 linked Soviet inflitrators to several groups
> which campaigned outside nuclear missile/submarine facilities and
> airfields. In the US it was well known where Stop The War coalitions
> funding originated, but what with Democracy and all it wasn't
> actually illegal for it to accept funds.
However, using the logic you used to get out of Goatboy's earlier point, that was a different time with different rules. Under that logic, past funding means nothing, correct? It's only the here and now.
How come you're willing to forgive past actions governments you support, but you'll readily dredge up the past if it fits? Don't you accept that you're not being even-handed?
>
> I find the fact that you try to link something I've mentioned to a
> Nazi quite desperate really, still if you feel the need.
Fair enough. So it's desperate; that doesn't actually change the point though; Goerring first mention the idea of equating anti-war feeling to a lack of patriotism. And you are comparing anti-war feeling to a lack of patriotism.
>
> Yes, the anti war coalition had concerns, but ultimately the Iraqi
> people could not rid themselves of Saddam, and noticeably very few of
> the anti-war people who got press time were from Iraq, the main group
> of Iraqi exiles in the UK fully supported the war from the word go.
> In fact one Iraqi exile, a woman, went on one of the BBC's news
> programs (where a set audience questions someone, I forget it's name)
> against a whole room of anti-war people and silenced them all, live
> on air.
This would be the same BBC that you have repeatedly accused of being anti-war and anti-government? Surely they wouldn't have broadcast that program if they were as anti-government as you've claimed?
Also, you've acknowledged that they had concerns, but do you now acknowledge that they were legitimate? I'm not interested in who put forward the concerns, and which anti war groups were best represented in the media. I'm interested in one thing, which is:
Do you think that the concerns of the anti war movement dismissed by yourself, namely that the war would degenerate into a situation whereby the coalition would be an unwelcome occupying force suffering repeated terrorist attacks, were legitimate?
The rest of this post is pretty much just me saying what I think, but if you ignore everything else, I'd like an answer of sorts to that question.
>
> If there were Iraqi's, in the UK, all saying "no war" then
> that would merit attention, and we were kind of lacking that, whilst
> we did see protests in Iraq itself none of those were spontaneous and
> the fact Saddam himself walked amongst them suggests they were not
> real protests but contrived. Someone like Saddam does not walk
> amongst random people like that. On the other hand, in the UK and
> elsewhere we also saw Pro War marches, whilst in Iraq, strangely -
> considering the fact that most of the population demonstrated their
> hate for Saddam in the closing days of the war - there were none,
> which again support the fact that any anti war protests in Iraq were
> contrived.
Okay then; you're asserting that there was obvious anti-Saddam feeling in the closing days of the way. I admit that I knew nothing of that. So could you provide me with some evidence of it.
As a side point, you've been complaining about changing the subject in the threads; yet here you are having taken a question (Do you feel the anti war concerns were legitimate) and responded to it with a point about media bias.
>
> Undoubtedly this discussion could be endless, so may as well stick
> back to the topic of resignations.
Fair enough, but I'd like you answer my question, and then I'll drop this matter completely. As a side point, you were complaining earlier about me changing the topic; it was actually you who brought up the point about the evidence of Saddam and his army going on alert. But that's by the by. The point is that these threads always evolve and change. Criticising for changing the subject if everyone else follows it seems somewhat redundant. Again, just an observation.
> I don't care where anti-war funding theories come from, it proved true
> in the Cold War when MI5 linked Soviet inflitrators to several groups
> which campaigned outside nuclear missile/submarine facilities and
> airfields. In the US it was well known where Stop The War coalitions
> funding originated, but what with Democracy and all it wasn't
> actually illegal for it to accept funds.
However, using the logic you used to get out of Goatboy's earlier point, that was a different time with different rules. Under that logic, past funding means nothing, correct? It's only the here and now.
How come you're willing to forgive past actions governments you support, but you'll readily dredge up the past if it fits? Don't you accept that you're not being even-handed?
>
> I find the fact that you try to link something I've mentioned to a
> Nazi quite desperate really, still if you feel the need.
Fair enough. So it's desperate; that doesn't actually change the point though; Goerring first mention the idea of equating anti-war feeling to a lack of patriotism. And you are comparing anti-war feeling to a lack of patriotism.
>
> Yes, the anti war coalition had concerns, but ultimately the Iraqi
> people could not rid themselves of Saddam, and noticeably very few of
> the anti-war people who got press time were from Iraq, the main group
> of Iraqi exiles in the UK fully supported the war from the word go.
> In fact one Iraqi exile, a woman, went on one of the BBC's news
> programs (where a set audience questions someone, I forget it's name)
> against a whole room of anti-war people and silenced them all, live
> on air.
This would be the same BBC that you have repeatedly accused of being anti-war and anti-government? Surely they wouldn't have broadcast that program if they were as anti-government as you've claimed?
Also, you've acknowledged that they had concerns, but do you now acknowledge that they were legitimate? I'm not interested in who put forward the concerns, and which anti war groups were best represented in the media. I'm interested in one thing, which is:
Do you think that the concerns of the anti war movement dismissed by yourself, namely that the war would degenerate into a situation whereby the coalition would be an unwelcome occupying force suffering repeated terrorist attacks, were legitimate?
The rest of this post is pretty much just me saying what I think, but if you ignore everything else, I'd like an answer of sorts to that question.
>
> If there were Iraqi's, in the UK, all saying "no war" then
> that would merit attention, and we were kind of lacking that, whilst
> we did see protests in Iraq itself none of those were spontaneous and
> the fact Saddam himself walked amongst them suggests they were not
> real protests but contrived. Someone like Saddam does not walk
> amongst random people like that. On the other hand, in the UK and
> elsewhere we also saw Pro War marches, whilst in Iraq, strangely -
> considering the fact that most of the population demonstrated their
> hate for Saddam in the closing days of the war - there were none,
> which again support the fact that any anti war protests in Iraq were
> contrived.
Okay then; you're asserting that there was obvious anti-Saddam feeling in the closing days of the way. I admit that I knew nothing of that. So could you provide me with some evidence of it.
As a side point, you've been complaining about changing the subject in the threads; yet here you are having taken a question (Do you feel the anti war concerns were legitimate) and responded to it with a point about media bias.
>
> Undoubtedly this discussion could be endless, so may as well stick
> back to the topic of resignations.
Fair enough, but I'd like you answer my question, and then I'll drop this matter completely. As a side point, you were complaining earlier about me changing the topic; it was actually you who brought up the point about the evidence of Saddam and his army going on alert. But that's by the by. The point is that these threads always evolve and change. Criticising for changing the subject if everyone else follows it seems somewhat redundant. Again, just an observation.
I don't care where anti-war funding theories come from, it proved true in the Cold War when MI5 linked Soviet inflitrators to several groups which campaigned outside nuclear missile/submarine facilities and airfields. In the US it was well known where Stop The War coalitions funding originated, but what with Democracy and all it wasn't actually illegal for it to accept funds.
I find the fact that you try to link something I've mentioned to a Nazi quite desperate really, still if you feel the need.
Yes, the anti war coalition had concerns, but ultimately the Iraqi people could not rid themselves of Saddam, and noticeably very few of the anti-war people who got press time were from Iraq, the main group of Iraqi exiles in the UK fully supported the war from the word go. In fact one Iraqi exile, a woman, went on one of the BBC's news programs (where a set audience questions someone, I forget it's name) against a whole room of anti-war people and silenced them all, live on air.
If there were Iraqi's, in the UK, all saying "no war" then that would merit attention, and we were kind of lacking that, whilst we did see protests in Iraq itself none of those were spontaneous and the fact Saddam himself walked amongst them suggests they were not real protests but contrived. Someone like Saddam does not walk amongst random people like that. On the other hand, in the UK and elsewhere we also saw Pro War marches, whilst in Iraq, strangely - considering the fact that most of the population demonstrated their hate for Saddam in the closing days of the war - there were none, which again support the fact that any anti war protests in Iraq were contrived.
Undoubtedly this discussion could be endless, so may as well stick back to the topic of resignations.
I think Kelly's wife 'may' have done the requisite damage to Blair's entire government, and impacted on the Enquiry. Hoon won't walk out of this now, and Blair can either say he didn't know what happened (which looks stupid because it suggests he doesn't know what the Minister of Defence is doing at a time when UK forces are engaged overseas) , or say he did know, in which case it's curtains time.
I find the fact that you try to link something I've mentioned to a Nazi quite desperate really, still if you feel the need.
Yes, the anti war coalition had concerns, but ultimately the Iraqi people could not rid themselves of Saddam, and noticeably very few of the anti-war people who got press time were from Iraq, the main group of Iraqi exiles in the UK fully supported the war from the word go. In fact one Iraqi exile, a woman, went on one of the BBC's news programs (where a set audience questions someone, I forget it's name) against a whole room of anti-war people and silenced them all, live on air.
If there were Iraqi's, in the UK, all saying "no war" then that would merit attention, and we were kind of lacking that, whilst we did see protests in Iraq itself none of those were spontaneous and the fact Saddam himself walked amongst them suggests they were not real protests but contrived. Someone like Saddam does not walk amongst random people like that. On the other hand, in the UK and elsewhere we also saw Pro War marches, whilst in Iraq, strangely - considering the fact that most of the population demonstrated their hate for Saddam in the closing days of the war - there were none, which again support the fact that any anti war protests in Iraq were contrived.
Undoubtedly this discussion could be endless, so may as well stick back to the topic of resignations.
I think Kelly's wife 'may' have done the requisite damage to Blair's entire government, and impacted on the Enquiry. Hoon won't walk out of this now, and Blair can either say he didn't know what happened (which looks stupid because it suggests he doesn't know what the Minister of Defence is doing at a time when UK forces are engaged overseas) , or say he did know, in which case it's curtains time.
Belldandy wrote:
> No it's not, go back and read what I said. I can't be bothered to
> post tons of links because you don't want to believe it.
Yeah, I read it. I read your view on his credentials. But the fact remains, he's the guy who said it and no-one independant has verified it. You saying "I can't be bothered"...well, why post it in the first place if you're not willing to defend it?
>
> Yup, I agree. But on the other hand, most of the anti-war people
> have
> been saying that from the word go. And I seem to recall you
> dismissing those concerns.
>
> ~Which would be why Stop The War Coalition is marching on 27th of
> September with the express aim of an immediate pull out of all
> coalition troops ? Oookay, I beginning to wonder where the Coalitions
> funding really does come from, apart from old Communist groups of
> course....
You're quite right, and if you recall, I said how much I disagree with that aim. Y'see Bell, you're assuming that because I don't agree with you, I must agree with the 'other side'. That's a manichean view of the world that doesn't allow for shades of gray and is therefore quite limiting.
But anyway, back to my original point; I'm talking about the anti-war coalition before the war started. They raised the concerns you're now talking about. They certainly shouldn't now dismiss those concerns in order to make a point about the US/UK shouldn't be in there in the first place. But the fact remains; you also dismissed those concerns before the war started. Won't you now acknowledge that they were legitimate?
Also, the implication of anti-war being funded by the people being warred against was first mooted as a method of political control by Air Marshall Hermann Goering. Just thought you should be aware of that.
> No it's not, go back and read what I said. I can't be bothered to
> post tons of links because you don't want to believe it.
Yeah, I read it. I read your view on his credentials. But the fact remains, he's the guy who said it and no-one independant has verified it. You saying "I can't be bothered"...well, why post it in the first place if you're not willing to defend it?
>
> Yup, I agree. But on the other hand, most of the anti-war people
> have
> been saying that from the word go. And I seem to recall you
> dismissing those concerns.
>
> ~Which would be why Stop The War Coalition is marching on 27th of
> September with the express aim of an immediate pull out of all
> coalition troops ? Oookay, I beginning to wonder where the Coalitions
> funding really does come from, apart from old Communist groups of
> course....
You're quite right, and if you recall, I said how much I disagree with that aim. Y'see Bell, you're assuming that because I don't agree with you, I must agree with the 'other side'. That's a manichean view of the world that doesn't allow for shades of gray and is therefore quite limiting.
But anyway, back to my original point; I'm talking about the anti-war coalition before the war started. They raised the concerns you're now talking about. They certainly shouldn't now dismiss those concerns in order to make a point about the US/UK shouldn't be in there in the first place. But the fact remains; you also dismissed those concerns before the war started. Won't you now acknowledge that they were legitimate?
Also, the implication of anti-war being funded by the people being warred against was first mooted as a method of political control by Air Marshall Hermann Goering. Just thought you should be aware of that.
I very much doubt that Blair will resign. There's no need to. For some reason he still has supporters. God knows why.
Did you see that programme about Campbell last night? He even looks dodgy in real life. He over emphasises hand gestures and makes very general and vague comments when he doesn't want to reveal anything.
But what worries me now is the fact that we don't know what he's doing. At least before we knew what he was up to, but now he could be unofficially working for the government or doing literally anything and we'd be none the wiser. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it wasn't meant to.
Did you see that programme about Campbell last night? He even looks dodgy in real life. He over emphasises hand gestures and makes very general and vague comments when he doesn't want to reveal anything.
But what worries me now is the fact that we don't know what he's doing. At least before we knew what he was up to, but now he could be unofficially working for the government or doing literally anything and we'd be none the wiser. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it wasn't meant to.
Blair won't resign, he's too turned on by power.
Short of being caught with his knob in a chicken, he'll never go.
Which is why I think Campbell went when he did, to take the heat away from Blair's comments.
I want to know why Blair refused a judicial enquiry into the reasons offered for going to war, yet they couldn't organise the Hutton enquiry (with final responsibility by the government) into Dr Kelly?
This whole thing stinks of protection, secret handshakes and fall-guys.
Short of being caught with his knob in a chicken, he'll never go.
Which is why I think Campbell went when he did, to take the heat away from Blair's comments.
I want to know why Blair refused a judicial enquiry into the reasons offered for going to war, yet they couldn't organise the Hutton enquiry (with final responsibility by the government) into Dr Kelly?
This whole thing stinks of protection, secret handshakes and fall-guys.
Page: