It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

LIVE: Chilcot Iraq Inquiry report summation

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
I am quite surprised by how damming this is for the government.

So far i have heard that basically the report found that they did not have to go to war at that time, that they had not exhausted all possibilities and also just heard that they have said that although their findings are not legal findings they have passed on information to lawyers regarding the legality of war.

I think this report could just be the first step.

will be very interesting to see that going to happen in the next few years after this report.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Also I am watching Blair on TV right now, he looks very close to tears over this.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Also I am watching Blair on TV right now, he looks very close to tears over this.


Crocodile tears from a well known reptoid.

I wonder how many genuine tears he has dropped over this disgusting atrocity to human kind.

I'd wager none, unless he was laughing hysterically.
edit on 6-7-2016 by Hazardous1408 because: Autocorrect.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Also I am watching Blair on TV right now, he looks very close to tears over this.

Like this ?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Also I am watching Blair on TV right now, he looks very close to tears over this.


Crocodile tears from a well known reptoid.

I wonder how many genuine tears he has dropped over this disgusting atrocity to human kind.

I'd wager none, unless he was laughing hysterically.


I have a far less cynical view of the world.

I never supported the war, I supported ousting Saddam but I do not believe that the war was "just" in 2003 and was largely driven by a Non-conservative foreign policy.

That said I think that its all to easy to forget our political leaders are also only human like the rest of us and are just as flawed. I highly doubt a young Tony Blair wanted to send young men to their deaths when he was a young up and coming politician in the 1990's. I think any world leader making the decision to go to war must be the hardest decision to ever make and its very easy to sit back and criticise over a decade later.

I think Blair and even Bush probably spend many nights awake shedding tears.

Now i do not say this to stick up for any of them because I do not agree with the premiss for the Iraq War, I only say it to keep the debate over this on topic and civil. When we start dehumanising as some kind of evil demons we stop critically reflecting on what happened and before you know it we will have 30 pages of "Jail Blair", "Evil Blair", "Blair killed millions", "Blair is a NWO pawn" and so on with out any actual reflection on what happened and why it happened.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   
It is interesting to note that in this speech Blair has mentioned "Conspiracy Theories" several times.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

This is where we differ, mate.

Because I truly believe Blair is a Demon, or at least a Demoniac...


& have since I see him with a wide eyed grin on day time TV a few years ago when asked if there were any mistakes made...


The smile made me sick to my stomach and changed my outlook on Blair completely.


But, if he is humanoid, and he does sit and cry at night, I say good.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving person in my opinion.

The man left a trail of destruction, not excluding Robin Cook & David Kelly.


I guess those are the "conspiracy theories" he wishes to distance his tarred name from.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

With respect, it's the 'why' of it that has always eluded me.

I can put forward several theories: oil. land. stargates. abduction of children. to name a few.

But, somehow, these bastards (American and British) managed to get away with it and offered no satisfactory reason for their actions. They seemed to think they could fob us off by accusing Iraq of being a threat. And, if nobody believed them, they were secure enough to laugh it off.

I grew up believing we were the 'good guys'. Blair and his cronies have robbed us all of that.

I won't demonise him - I don't need to. He is an arrogant, narcissistic, opportunistic, the-rules-don't-apply-to-me, lying, slippery human being.*

*I'm sure I've missed a few.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: berenike

I agree with you I think like i said I think this was largely driven by a Non-conservative foreign policy agenda that was ingrained in London and Washington. I think that we went to war for the wrong reasons and I think this war was about furthering a non-conservative agenda above all else.

I think that some very senior people, particularly in the intelligence and political community should be facing a jury of their peers to explain why we went to war.

The intelligence was wrong be it through negligence or wilfully misleading the nation, in my job if someone died as a result of my negligence wilful or otherwise i would find myself standing up in a court room explaining what happened. So why is nobody facing a trial over this?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Because they don't live by the same rules you and I have to live by

IF justice was able to be served do you really think this inquiry would be so damning towards Blair ? No it would have been manipulated to say he wasn't to blame.

Just like Hilary despite the investigators giving us a list of their wrong doings and how in other circumstance others would be punished, they will not be punished because they're immune from the law



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

To be clear when i am talking about people facing a jury i am talking about the specific individuals who collated and presented intelligence that was fundamentally flawed. Who was the guy that told the PM that Al-Qa'ida had a direct connection to Saddam, who was the guy who said this is solid enough intelligence I am going to walk down the road to number 10 and tell the PM about this. Who were the authors of this intelligence dosier, who decided that the intelligence contained within it was accurate.

And from the politicians, if there is evidence which says they deliberately mislead the country or acted illegally then they should also face a jury. Now I think the difference is getting that evidence where you can place the blame on individuals but if it exists then they should be in jail.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If it was a business would the owner/CEO/board not be held responsible for gross negligence and deaths of people ? Why should the government be any different, the head of any organisation who is responsible for thousands of deaths should be held accountable



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Discotech

Well what i mean is if MR.A says to Mr Blair "PM I have seen solid intelligence that shows Saddam intends to restart a WMD program and i have verified it" then surly Mr.A should be jailed for being dishonest to the PM and British people.

There have now been 5 reports all of which refute any claims that the UK Government mislead the country.

I personally think when it comes to misleading the country the Americans have much more to answer for



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Not exactly a shock here, eh?

Damn binary decisions.




Crooks and Liars

This validates all those Brits who called Blair, Bush's lap dog. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, just apologized to the people of England as well. So I now apologize sincerely on behalf of my party for the disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003. That apology is owed first of all to the people of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and the country is still living with the devastating consequences of the war and the forces it unleashed. They have paid the greatest price for the most serious foreign policy calamity of the last 60 years.

edit on 7/6/2016 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Blair said that there isn't a day goes by without thinking about his decision to take the U.K to war, but and there's always a but with him, the world is a safer place without Saddam in it.

Yes, that's right, he actually claimed that, the warmongering lap dog of Bush.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I disagree, he should be tried in court as the warmongering criminal he is, a simple bounty on his head is to good for him.

I listened to this news being discussed on radio 2 and there was even a few callers defending the war on Iraq! Either this proves they have shills working for them, or some people are so blind their heads must irrevocably be stuck up their own backsides.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




I think Blair and even Bush probably spend many nights awake shedding tears.


Really? Oh the burdens they must bare... Blair though believes killing Saddam was the right thing to do, so the rest of the 50,000 Iraqi lives lost plus all the soldiers killed an maimed was worth it somehow? That just shows how twisted his thinking really is, the mans a psychopath.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
So, we waited seven years to be told basically what everyone knew anyway. I suppose we can be grateful it wasn't a whitewash.

Can we have a Tony Blair Inquiry now, please?

Twenty years later, "...so we conclude that Mr Blair was a scheming, self-serving politician and possible psychopath."

Ooh cheers. I'd never have guessed.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: crazyewok

I disagree, he should be tried in court as the warmongering criminal he is, a simple bounty on his head is to good for him.





He should. That is the ideal outcome.

But that will never happen as he is filthy rich and has friends in high places so he will never see the inside of a courtroom let alone a prison cell.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
The fact to took 7 years to come up with this BS report is a joke in itself.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join