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.

 

NEWS: Robin Cook Dies

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Former foreign Secretary Robin Cook has died after collapsing. He collapsed while walking in the Scottish mountains. Recently, he has been a vociferous opponent of Tony Blair's Iraq policy and he resigned from the Government on the advent of the war.
 



Former Cabinet minister Robin Cook has died after he collapsed while out hill walking, police have said.

It is believed that he was taken ill near the summit of Ben Stack, near an area known as Laxford Bridge in north-west Scotland.

Mr Cook, 59, was flown by helicopter to Raigmore Hospital in Inverness, and is understood to have received 40 minutes of resuscitation en route.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




I hate to speculate but it sounds like a heart attack. He was a man who has gained considerable credibility in the UK over the last 2 and a half years.

He'll be sadly missed. I for one hoped that he might again attain high office even perhaps Prime Minister.

Many will remember his resignation speech just before the Iraq debate after which, unusually, he received an ovation from the House of Commons.Here below is printed the full text of that famous speech so that once more we can see his gift for diplomacy and his natural integrity.

House of Commons Tuesday, March 18, 2003

"This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the Back Benches. I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here. None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr. Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview. On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement. I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime. I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the Prime Minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution. I do not think that anybody could have done better than the Foreign Secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council. But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed. Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner -- not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition. The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo. It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbors in the region. France and Germany were our active allies. It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis. Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands. I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back. I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops. It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy. For four years as Foreign Secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment. Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralized and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term—namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the Prime Minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people. On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favorite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government."

[Applause]


For those who wish to get a better idea of the tenor and impact of this speech the link to an audio file is included below. It is recommended listening.

Audio File: Robin Cook's Resignation Speech

(Thankyou 12m8keall2c for supplying the link to the audio file
)

[edit on 7-8-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 9-8-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
From the reports on the C4 news and the BBC website - it does sound like a *bad* heart attack. Forty minutes of recusitation being required....


JAK

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
As more details come into the BBC and the order of events becomes clearer they have just recieved confirmation that, sadly, Mr. Cook has died.



[edit on 6/8/05 by JAK]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
the fact that he has been a opponent of Tony Blair's Iraq policy and he resigned from the Government on the advent of the war...his sickness could be related to psychotronic attacts being done on him...

just an opinion....



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Sad news, he has been reported to have died aged 59 according to BBC news online.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Labor has lost a formidable member of parliament.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
A man that opposes the war in Iraq -
A voracious opponent of Tony Blair -
A man who resigned because of the war -

And now a man who has a heart attack while walking in the mountains ??

Like all who oppose the war in Iraq and tell the truth, he has to be silenced, just like the scientists that have died in "mysterious circumstances"..
(just a theory !!)

God rest Robin.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by andy1972]

[edit on 6-8-2005 by andy1972]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
ROBIN COOK DIES AFTER HEART ATTACK
Sky


TPL

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
So sudden. May he rest in peace.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

FORMER British foreign secretary Robin Cook has died after collapsing while hiking in Scotland, the BBC has reported.

Mr Cook was taken to hospital in "serious condition" on overnight after he collapsed whilst hiking in his native Scotland, Sky News and BBC News 24 television reported. Cook, 59, was with a group near the summit of Ben Stack mountain in the Highlands when he collapsed, they said. He was taken to a hospital near Inverness by helicopter after a call to the coastguard.
Few further details were immediately available, but BBC News 24 quoted a senior Scottish political source as saying that Cook was "seriously ill". It also said that he was given cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Without naming Cook, an official of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency told AFP that a Sikorsky air-sea rescue helicopter was sent to Ben Stack to pick up "a collapsed walker".

The Northern Constabulary, the police force that covers the north of Scotland, said it would not release details until Cook's next of kin have been contacted.

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, standing in for Prime Minister Tony Blair who departed Saturday for a holiday abroad, was to make a statement later Saturday evening, BBC News 24 said.

News.com.au

Very sad.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
You have got to be joking me!

This is suspicious as hell!

Rest In Peace Man of Conscience



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Can we show a bit of respect and not turn this into a conspiracy until all the information has been collated.


JAK

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
He will be truly missed, a Labour party member with passion and principles. Held in high regard by many for those same reasons he was, in my opinion, one of the few politicians who genuinely deserved respect.

Jack Straw who replaced Robin Cook as Foriegn Secetary in 2001 said of Mr Cook he was 'The finest Parliamentarian of his generation'.

RIP Mr Cook.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I think 'the conspiracy angle" should not be taken off the agenda, instead suspicions kept fresh.

We can mourn him and at the same time state our sentiments of suspicion.

I don't personally care if it is not "politically correct", instead of being real people are being politically correct these days and to fearful of speaking their minds.

If there is something suspicious about his death and unfortunately we will never quite know, then the best way to honour him is to question.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
You have got to be joking me!

This is suspicious as hell!

Rest In Peace Man of Conscience


why? people die every day. 30 years of drinkin, smokin and eatin red meat doesnt always agree with ones heart.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
For many people in the UK Robin Cook was their eloquent voice of sensible opposition.

I think it's natural people should be suspicious but that only shows how much we've come to rely on him.

Don't let shock cloud your judgement. There is no conspiracy except the one he spent the last two years trying to expose.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Strange Indeed.

Does anybody know, I mean has anybody found out if Mister Cook had any Health Problems with Heart prior to this Event?

Sure would be interesting to know.

Rest In Peace mister Cook....



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
That came out of the blue. This has legs for a conspiracy, him being against the war and the rest of it, but like has been said, lets get some details and facts first.
Be interesting to here if he did have any health problems too.
R.I.P.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurityOfPeace
That came out of the blue. This has legs for a conspiracy, him being against the war and the rest of it, but like has been said, lets get some details and facts first.
Be interesting to here if he did have any health problems too.
R.I.P.


ya, and his opposition would matter if this was 3 years ago when we invaded, but now that its all but wrapped up, who cares?(no disrespect to the deceased). Lots of people were opposed in the begining. Now, you cant find anyone who thinks its a good idea to just up and leave iraq.

And say...just say...that he was killed, wouldnt it be better served to have him "blown up by terrorists", instead of a heart attack in the woods? Thats to "x-fileish" for my pallete. Perhaps the strain of hiking in the woods did it?
My brother had a massive heart attack last december and hes only 38. I just buried my cousin a month ago. Massive heart attack. 29. Fit and clean. It does happen..

Im just sayin that if the brittish government wanted him dead, they would probably make it look like a terrorist hit to garner support for the cause. Not off in the woods somewhere.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
You have got to be joking me!

This is suspicious as hell!



You'r not kidding, I smell it too. I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, but my God it is a big coincidence.

How many members of parliament have died since robin Cook resigned? That is a question that could put a coincidence into perspective.



[edit on 023131p://31082 by MERC]




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join