This thread has convinced me. 
What of, I'm still not sure.
What of, I'm still not sure.
Blair wants battle of ideas with terrorists
- Thread starter Kid_Eternity
- Start date
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Backatcha Bandit said:The implication being that our enemy is not civilised.
As demonstrated by such civilised behaviour as the summary execution of babies in their beds, eh? Oh, that was 'our side'.
The veil over this 'thinly veiled racism' isn't getting any thicker, is it?
It's almost as bad as what Bush said - "30 000 Iraqis dead, give or take", as though they're not worth counting the exact number
cemertyone said:Which Arab societies are you referring to.
1.Iraq..under a military occupation.
2.Palestain...under a military occupaition.
3.Lebanon...destroyed after a military occupaition.
4.Iran...threatend with invasion.
5.Egypt...a corrupt client western state.
6.jordan.....the same.
Put your brain in gear before you open your mouth son..
So military occupation absolves all of Arab society from any contribution to any of the current discord in the Middle East?
Red Jezza said:
Dunno about the whole of new labour, but blair i'm sure has a belief system. And that is to make his citizens safe from all those pesky other (uncivilised) citizens who he perceives to be nasty criminals.
It's why i keep referring blair to being insane. He creates enemies through his actions, then finds those enemies in his head, then takes action to exterminate them. And because of the whole scenario he believes he's going to go down in history as being the saviour of all 'free' citizens.
Not too unlike other madmen from history, hitler for example.
frogwoman said:It's almost as bad as what Bush said - "30 000 Iraqis dead, give or take", as though they're not worth counting the exact number
The number is of no concern to bush, none of those iraqi lives are. He is playing a game of chess, and this particular version requires only one thing of its players: amorality.
Blair is a player too. They care fuck all about lives - iraqi citizens, american or british forces. They are amoral, and so such HUMAN things don't concern them.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
fela fan said:
fela fan said:
Eh? Doesn't the above two statements contradict each other?
cemertyone
Well-Known Member
Fledgling said:
EH...not it does not ( and i nevr said it did) what i would argue however is that it significantly contributes to it.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
fela fan said:
But in one you say Blair has a belief and wants to make certain people safe and in the other you say Blair doesn't give a fuck about anyone.
Kid_Eternity said:But in one you say Blair has a belief and wants to make certain people safe and in the other you say Blair doesn't give a fuck about anyone.
I suggest you're finding the meaning you're wanting to find!
If people die, being amoral means you have no emotional attachment to the deaths.
If you're the leader of a big country like britain, then you want history. You want to think you're leading your citizens. You have a massive ego. You believe in your own head that you are keeping your own citizens safe. If they die, then no emotional attachment, don't care, no problems, just deaths and numbers.
Blair displays exactly the same behaviour as the current dictator in thailand. Both britain and thailand are democracies. They both believe they are there because they are so good for their countries. In reality they are pathetic men with huge egos and tiny specks of intelligence. It's all manipulation of the media for them.
They care fuck all about lives, but they do think within themselves that they are protecting their countries from the bad, and giving them the good.
And going back to the thread title, blair wants battle of ideas with terrorists.
He IS a terrorist, the state variety, a much more deadly variety than the citizen variety.
He wants a battle of ideas. What a sad fucker. He's gone to war in iraq over non-weapons, now he wants a war with ideas. Insane. Is there no end to his fighting and warmongering? He obviously has got it into his muddled head that he is on a mission to help make the world safer. What a sad deluded pathetic man.
He's all spin and lies. I just read that the singer from radiohead cancelled meeting blair when he was being asked for a pre-meeting to go over what might be in the actual meeting. What kind of life is this? This man blair should be in the funny farm.
He IS a terrorist, the state variety, a much more deadly variety than the citizen variety.
He wants a battle of ideas. What a sad fucker. He's gone to war in iraq over non-weapons, now he wants a war with ideas. Insane. Is there no end to his fighting and warmongering? He obviously has got it into his muddled head that he is on a mission to help make the world safer. What a sad deluded pathetic man.
He's all spin and lies. I just read that the singer from radiohead cancelled meeting blair when he was being asked for a pre-meeting to go over what might be in the actual meeting. What kind of life is this? This man blair should be in the funny farm.
newharper
Manxome Tove
frogwoman said:It's almost as bad as what Bush said - "30 000 Iraqis dead, give or take", as though they're not worth counting the exact number
well if you want callous .
""We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." "
"Madeleine Korbel Albright (born May 15, 1937) served as the 64th United States Secretary of State."
She's talking about the number of Iraqi children that died under the sanctions imposed after Gulf war 1.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
frogwoman said:
Occasionally the mask slips, and Albright later said she didn't mean it, but then you can't say much else after that pile of shite, eh?
frogwoman said:no - i've heard some horrible things about that bitch before, which i didn't really want to believe, since I originally thought the democrats were better...but ...
apparently, Clinton was also planning a second invasion of Iraq...
The problem is it doesn't really matter who's in charge. The need to retain and strengthen empire has its own agenda. It has its own force, and those that come into positions of influence find themselves having to perpetuate the requirements. They have to adapt to the demands placed on their jobs.
Truly, God must be killed off before man/woman can have their freedom. The meaning i see in this is that we have to learn how to say and do what we believe to be right, not what we are expected to say or do what is 'right' based on our particular context in life.
Always humans have a higher to answer for. That's why good people can turn into bad people. It's the demands y'know, the demands.
Barking_Mad said:
Yeah, initially she spoke according to her job. Later she realised what a wanker she was, based on basic human values. But no-one wants to see themselves as wankers, so they then enter the realms of self-delusion. And that is comfortable as fuck for amoral destroyers of humanity. It allows them to continue to believe they're a human being. When in fact they have regressed to animal status.
It's why blair lies just about every time he moves his lips. Start off with a lie, and you cannot stop. It just gains its own momemtum. He will believe everything he says. If not, then he owns up to himself that he is no longer sane. And that would be no good for anyone!!
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Liberty and human rights administered by secular courts, from the cunt who called the rights of a suspect a 19th century relic, imposed control orders and outlawed "religious hatred". Beyond satire.
And yet the population actually accept this. No wonder I don't feel the urge to sing about the merits of the people.
Similar threads
