The Killing of Tony Blair

I see George Galloway has financed a new documentary entitled 'The Killing of Tony Blair'. I see this as positive development because the documentary is entirely financed by individual donations and should hopefully continue the attempts to get Blair put in prison for life for his terrible crimes against humanity. Take this interview with Blair here. Not only does he say he would do the same again despite the war being based upon lies, but he also makes the insane claim that Iraq today is better off because of improved child mortality rates. Does this man fail to recall that the US/UK led sanctions on Iraq were the primary reason why children suffered under Saddam? He also pretty much admits to being a dictator in being able to make the decision to go to war. It's mindblowing.

Also lest we forget, Tony Blair was a man that destroyed the Labour Party, was complicit in the destruction of the British economy, expanded the daft notion of faith based schools, and is today representing despicable regimes across the world for daft sums of money. What a despicable man he must be too.

Tony Blair fails to see himself as a war criminal as he thinks his faith protects him and that he was doing the right thing. I don't believe in hell, so instead would like to see him in prison. Do you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0jH59oAm70

Bush was the instigator so he should be included.

Yes he should

Clinton and Blair were buddy buddy, might as well throw him in as well.

For the people voting no, I would like to understand the thinking. I wouldn't stop at Tony Blair, but seeing as Thatcher is dead, he is directly responsible for setting in motion the destruction of the UK, his own political party, and for destroying the lives of millions of people. I don't buy into the argument that someone had to make the decision regarding Iraq. There were ways and means of dealing with Saddam and Blair was happy to be friends with Libya and Saudi Arabia (the latter being one of the most terrible regimes in the world and is largely responsible for terrorism in the West). Tony Blair became friendly with Gaddafi whilst British tertiary education helped his child somehow get through a PhD. I don't know how many of you have PhD's, but for ordinary working people, to obtain one requires significant sacrifice, effort, and brain power. Remarkably, the child of this world leader had all these qualities and the PhD was duly obtained. Put nothing beyond the reach of teflon Tony and what he can do for his dictator pals. You blew up an airplane over my country? Not a worry, we will even educate your kid for a price. Saudi dictator whose citizen's blew up the twin towers? Not a bother, we will invade Afghanistan as they are easy. Then we will lie to invade and get Saddam. After all he just had to go.

All these years later Tony Blair has on his hands the blood of a million people. Criticise Bin Laden all you like, but the allegations of his terror run into the thousands at best. There was no trial for Bin Laden. There should have been as people want to know the truth. However, the elite didn't want a trial and they most certainly don't want the truth. Meanwhile, Saddam has been executed. I don't approve of the death penalty, but a man should face trial for murder. Tony Blair meanwhile walks free, a rich man, with security paid for by the taxpayer, living much like a monarch and much like a monarch with blood on his hands. This is a man with a fake devil smile and hypocrisy etched in the lines around his eyes. He should be brought to justice. No assassination, no state killing, but a trial with a penalty and years to reflect on the time when he became like Saddam; a war criminal and a murderer.

This last month alone 800 people have been killed in Iraq as a result of sectarian violence. This bloodshed continues long after Blair and Bush attempted to play a nation like a computer game. Safe behind their security, their power, their lies, they set in motion terrible things for the world. They created bankrupt police states at home and unleashed torture and terror abroad. Britain still continues to be firm allies with other despicable regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Israel and continues to make false flags in an attempt to change regimes (Libya success, Syria fail).

One can only reflect by looking in a mirror and to cleanse a nations soul terrible people must be tried for their crimes. I would even include the Monarchy in that as the Queen rubberstamped the evil deal. Either she was head of state or she wasn't. No free pass for being quiet and taking the money. Once Britain defaults, abolishes the monarchy, locks up Tony Blair, then the nation can rebuild from scratch. America should follow suit too. Bush in prison, eradicate Goldman Sachs etc. Maybe put them all in Guantanamo minus the torture. These people have destroyed once proud nations (terrible nations historically speaking, but for short periods did some of the greatest things).

Blair and Bush should be locked up in the |Hague for the rest of their lives after havinf been convicted of war crimes. Hopefully a lot of people get to see the documentary.

People, I know it was a long time ago when our country made up lies to go to war and maimed and killed a tremendous number of people, but surely you disagreed with it and polling suggested this was the case. We did not want that stupid war.

So on that basis, why is the vote a tie? I know many of you have hearts and know what is right. Just tell the truth with a simple yes or no. 3-3 is a pathetic vote.

Galloway is a despicable man who makes apologies for the murderers of innocent people and who was more than willing to coat his own hands with the blood of women and children by courting Saddam. Hitchens exposed him as an intellectual minow and moral coward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Galloway is a despicable man who makes apologies for the murderers of innocent people and who was more than willing to coat his own hands with the blood of women and children by courting Saddam. Hitchens exposed him as an intellectual minow and moral coward.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5u1skEoqLs

Invade a Middle Eastern country to overthrow a military dictatorship in order to bring them democracy and then go to another Middle Eastern country and back a new military dictatorship that just overthrew a democratically elected government. It's a real shame hell doesn't actually exist.

Tony Blair backs Egypt's government and criticises Brotherhood | Politics | The Guardian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Galloway is a despicable man who makes apologies for the murderers of innocent people and who was more than willing to coat his own hands with the blood of women and children by courting Saddam. Hitchens exposed him as an intellectual minow and moral coward.

---

And you want to use Hitchens as a contrast, a man who arguably has less empathy than me when making an argument about anything. Hitchens became a hypocritical fraud in the later years of his life. I suppose the pretty green card turned him into a charlatan.

Galloway stands up for all the right things. He makes no excuses for the hypocrisies of the West and spares none of the blood spilled in the Middle East. Galloway is our most courageous politician and stands up against the cowardice of the existing system.

Galloways next stand will be to become Mayor of London and if he were to run it would be backed by the funds of the public in an effort to clean up the city. So first this documentary, then the funds to get him in London and send shivers down parliament, the Queen, and the banksters over the Thames. In some ways Galloway is the final chance to make a stand as he is one of us, the millions that shook our heads in shame, whilst war criminal acts were commited in our name.

Shame on you Greenbeanz. Something is going wrong in your head these days.

They actually had a debate in New York and Galloway kicked his arse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

They actually had a debate in New York and Galloway kicked his arse.

---

Yeah right.Yourself and Miles are like fawning teenagers when it comes to debate and/or rational discussion with no clue about actual reality or how to construct an argument. George barks and you both wag your tails. Seriously please tell me you were joking ?
Galloway is a hypocritical and pathetic little cunt and Hitchens completely and utterly destroyed him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMGpkbVvTA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Galloway is a despicable man who makes apologies for the murderers of innocent people and who was more than willing to coat his own hands with the blood of women and children by courting Saddam. Hitchens exposed him as an intellectual minow and moral coward.

---

And you want to use Hitchens as a contrast, a man who arguably has less empathy than me when making an argument about anything. Hitchens became a hypocritical fraud in the later years of his life. I suppose the pretty green card turned him into a charlatan.

Galloway stands up for all the right things. He makes no excuses for the hypocrisies of the West and spares none of the blood spilled in the Middle East. Galloway is our most courageous politician and stands up against the cowardice of the existing system.

Galloways next stand will be to become Mayor of London and if he were to run it would be backed by the funds of the public in an effort to clean up the city. So first this documentary, then the funds to get him in London and send shivers down parliament, the Queen, and the banksters over the Thames. In some ways Galloway is the final chance to make a stand as he is one of us, the millions that shook our heads in shame, whilst war criminal acts were commited in our name.

Shame on you Greenbeanz. Something is going wrong in your head these days.

---

Shame on me why? Because I dare not to formulate my opinion based on the thinking of the equivalent to the immature ramblings of an impressionable teenager ? Grow up and think for yourself. Whatever your opinion of the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War Galloway is a despicable man. One of us? You and Kirkland is what you mean. How dare you suggest something is going wrong in my head because I dare to suggest something that does not come to the same one dimensional conclusions that you do. Hitchens was a radical and a man of great moral bravery who though coming from the left stood against the tide of sheeple opinion that you so easily and without struggle continue to subscribe to and you then have the audacity to hold up a self serving caricature like Galloway as an example of virtue and empathy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhJRQo3rRMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Rk2EmXc7A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jggbey-AO3o

It was minutes before Galloway's Senate performance in May when he had his now famous run-in with Christopher Hitchens on the street. Hitchens, the Vanity Fair columnist and renegade from the left with a new career defending the 2003 invasion of Iraq, berated Galloway for his anti-war stance and his past ties to Saddam Hussein, upon which the MP called him "a drink-soaked former Trotskyite popinjay".
Such insults should not be left unattended, or so thought Hitchens, who subsequently challenged Galloway to join him in a public debate at a time and venue of his choosing...............



[...]


No one is more intrigued - or perhaps more appalled - by the event than the woman two seats to my left, Oona King. She, of course, is the former Labour candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow who knows first hand what it is like to go up against the barking Galloway. Some of us are imagining that Hitchens, a man of no small intellectual rigour, will surely get the better of the man from Dundee tonight. But perhaps Oona knows better. She whispers something to me about Galloway being "brilliant". Oh dear.


[..]


Hitchens begins in earnest, depicting the kind of world we would live in if the pacifists got their way. From the reactions around us, it seems he might have a good third of the hall in his pocket; he should do fine.It is still not quite clear to me at what point exactly Hitchens jumped the rails. Much later in the night, when Hitch and I and a few others have repaired to a friend's loft in SoHo, I attempt something of a post-mortem with him. Is there anything, I dare to wonder, that he perhaps wishes in hindsight he hadn't said to Galloway? Has he any regrets from the evening? Of course, he says flat-out no.



Hitchens vs Galloway: The big debate - World Politics - World - The Independent

"a drink-soaked former Trotskyite popinjay"

I'll give the UK crowd some props. US politicians can't throw around insults with that level of creativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

"a drink-soaked former Trotskyite popinjay"

I'll give the UK crowd some props. US politicians can't throw around insults with that level of creativity.

---

I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader.

That's got to be the best opening line of any US Senate testimony ever. He deserved the Medal of Honor for that one.

I don't understand it. Galloway is not a perfect man, but neither was Hitchens. Hitchens in his desire to be loved by a nation went from being a Trotskyite to a neo con, and in the words of Pilkington, that is 'bullshit'. A very smart man, but if it is consistency we want to attack it is Hitchens and not Galloway. Chris Hedges summed up Hitchens well when he described him as aggrandising and either this or that and no between.

Hitchens burnt all his bridges with lefty liberal media for a variety of reasons, drinking, gerneral unpleasantness and so on. He got offered lots of dough to write for the other side and needed to cover his bar tabs some way.

Galloway I'm guessing has been backing the Assad regime recently but that's entirely consistent with old Arab nationalist view (which George and me both subscribe to). Assad may be a butcher but he's a sovereign butcher and the last thing the Arab world needs in western interference in another of their countries, so Arab nationaists reflexively back the guy not backed by America/west.

So Miles and Kirkland hand in their cards and fold whilst pretending that there never was a poker game in the first place, and that good old George is at least, a consistent Cunt. The fact that he is and always will be inconsistent, a hypocrite and a supporter of butchers, bigots and barbarians is nothing compared to the fact that Hitchens liked a drink and smoked cigarettes. To top it all, the myopic view that a social conscience and the true Internationalist view taken by real Liberals like Hitchens is somehow a turn coat retreat to the Conservative right beggars belief. You turn your back as thousands are murdered and liberty is trodden underfoot and you have the gall to claim that you are standing in solidarity with your oppressed brothers ? It is you who are turning your back, You who think "I am alright Jack" You who both decide to side with a lecherous slug of a man, someone who blames victims of cruel and bloody violence for bringing it on themselves, someone who shakes the hands of Men who sanction the gassing and hanging and torture of those who seek the simple rights that you shit on with your namby pamby spoilt bratish versions of socialism. Socialism as an airy fairy construct where you never have to get your hands dirty, where you take photographs of protests without taking part, all the while amassing wealth for your self and lecturing the world on how your tiny narrow view on reality is the only one worth listening to.

And here was I thinking that George was alone in ascending the summit of embarrassment in such a public way. He may have had cream on his whiskers but you both seem to have something rather more unseemly on yours

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJrWFoq2GIQ

What the devil are you waffling on about?

Hitchens supported the war in Iraq which was based on lies and after sanctions had already killed countless children. You yourself support the monarchy which is itself is a system of tyranny that built its wealth on abuse, theft, and murder. You do not have the right to get snooty about what is right and wrong and condemn Galloway when you support systems of repression and history built upon bloodshed.

When it comes to the middle east Galloway is typically correct in his analysis. I happen to think Assad is the best of a bad bunch when it comes to Syria. There wouldn't be a civil war on the scale that there is if the Al Qaeda rebels were not flowing from borders beyond including those of Britain. However, in saying that Assad was despicable for killing his own people for the right to protest and Galloway has said as much. Taking sides just because the rebels are an 'alternative' is glib at best. Galloway was right on Iraq too. He is right on Hezbollah. He is right on Palestine. He is faily consistent in his views.

Galloway as mayor would be a genuine sense of change. For the better.