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.

 

Blair recalled to UK Iraq inquiry

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Blair recalled to UK Iraq inquiry


english.aljazeera.net

Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, has been recalled to a public inquiry into the Iraq war to give more evidence about the conflict.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mods i might have put this under the wrong section, My bad


edit on 8/12/10 by TedHodgson because: (no reason given)


www.iol.co.za...
edit on 8/12/10 by TedHodgson because: new link added




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Hah! Im glad theve called him in to answer for the crimes hes commited, who knows maybe he might get found out to be in the wrong.
Lindsey German:
"We will give him a very warm welcome, just as we mobilised protests against his last appearance before the committee."

I find the fact that he has no regrets hilarious, im glad i dont have that much blood on my hands.
Anyone fancy a good old blair slating?



english.aljazeera.net
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity, what crimes exactly did he commit? Please don't answer with public opinion, submit a court case and the evidence used to discredit him. What were the allegations? What supportive evidence that collaborates your comments?

Not trying to be a smart ass, just curious as to the Proof if any? Your claim is he committed crimes, I would like to see FACTS, or PROOF for my own personal review.
edit on 8-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This is great news but it will all come to nothing


He is so far up his own ass that he will probably give free copies of his book to everyone in the audience.

For the amount of people that have been killed in the war , Blair has ruined more lives in the UK. His in capacity to run a country and his greed has left alot of people on the breadline and has left their life in ruins.

We are not here for a long time but for a good time but leaders greed and self indulgences have made alot of peoples lives unbearable. This personally infuriates me.

Blair and Bush have have done so much damage to our world and still walk around as saviours is more a reflection on us as people than it is on them.

Law of Karma.......what goes around...comes around.

I hope this is true.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish Matador
 


Not defending Bush or Blair, but my question is simple, when are the current administrations within their respective countries going to take responsibility for their current actions? Its always finger pointing at Bush/Blair. As if they are the only leaders to ever take their countries to war? Come one? Get over yourselves and your simplistic thought processes!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 

At the end of the day its all down to personal oppinion, Like saying "show me proof of Hitlers crimes" The answer would be obvious to anyone who thought hitler was a prat, Ive heard many mention of him been called a war criminal over here, The protesters clearly think the same thing, in all relevence he is called a war criminal by many therefore seen by many as a criminal.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
For one, he lied about WMDs that never existed. This was the tool he used to sway public opinion, at least a little bit, in favour of the war effort.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


If we could get to his bank accounts, I could give you the proof you require.

I cant so you will just have to look at what we have which is:

Dead British Soldiers
Dead Iraqui Soldiers
Dead Civilians
Dead Scientists
No WMD

He has amassed a supposed wealth of 100 million$ since leaving office through oil deals and speaking.

He was appointed the Middle East Peace envoy


The PROOF you require is there. If you cant see it now then no court will convince you either.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 

They acted as the faces of their respectfull goverment bodies, of course the poeple who helped are also guilty but bush,blair they were the spokesmen for them and answerable to their faults.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


I'll give you that, but you and Irish Matador only suggest your opinion. Also known as heresay. Heresay won't stand in any court of law. I was simply wondering if there were cold hard facts. Public opinion, regardless of right or wrong, doesn't present itself has substantiated evidence to convict anyone.

Just sayin is all~



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 

They acted as the faces of their respectfull goverment bodies, of course the poeple who helped are also guilty but bush,blair they were the spokesmen for them and answerable to their faults.








With that logic, shouldn't all involved be " hung ". Spokesman, as you claim would suggest scapegoats would it not? Congress would have made their proverbial bed, shouldn't they also be made to sleep in it?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Thats what the current questioning of blair will hopefully accertain



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


I wouldn't get your hopes up!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
With that logic, shouldn't all involved be " hung ". Spokesman, as you claim would suggest scapegoats would it not? Congress would have made their proverbial bed, shouldn't they also be made to sleep in it?

Certainly but first it has to be accertained who commited the said crimes and who should be answerable for them and that will be the product of the recent questioning of blair and undoubtedly others will be questioned



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by arise91
For one, he lied about WMDs that never existed. This was the tool he used to sway public opinion, at least a little bit, in favour of the war effort.


I would say more than a little bit. Without the lie about WMD UK would NEVER have got involved in the Iraq war. It was a hard, hard slog getting people to agree evenwith that lie as an argument.

IMO the Iraq war was a war crime, and the start of them wielding post 9/11 'terrorism' over us as a threat I'm glad they are not letting him off the hook. He was very slippery in some of his answers last time...I hope they make him give some straight unequivocal answers this time.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Lets not forget the iraqui missiles, that could hit the UK in 30 minutes. We went in to regime change. Some thing which we had no right to do.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Aye, its like that piece of carrot cake that stared at me in the cafe today, i knew i couldnt have it, but i wanted it so bad!



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


The buck stops at the top. I dont know if you are aware how the dice rolls in politics and business. From your comments I feel you are only nit picking and not really discussing.

Yes I have made my opinions based on the actions and consequences that Bush and Blair have authorized.

Rather than asking for PROOF why dont you give your side of the coin as to why your opinion differs from mine??



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
With that logic, shouldn't all involved be " hung ". Spokesman, as you claim would suggest scapegoats would it not? Congress would have made their proverbial bed, shouldn't they also be made to sleep in it?

Certainly but first it has to be accertained who commited the said crimes and who should be answerable for them and that will be the product of the recent questioning of blair and undoubtedly others will be questioned








In your above comment you once again identify crimes? Do you not know, without supportive evidence/convictions, then there is no crime? Or do you mean allegations? There is a huge difference between the two.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish Matador
 


Well, honestly i dont know what type of fantasy land you live in, but in most countries, there is a little thing called " due process". Ever heard of it? It allows for any potential criminal/suspect to under go a trial by jury, where FACTS and PROOF against the accused is set forth. The phrase" innocent till proven guilty " , is a phrase most countries ( not all ) recognize. Your responses have been your opinion, nothing more. I respect the fact you even have a view, but public opinion does not supersede Constitutional law.


Even in your country, Blair will under go what is called a Congressional hearing. Much like what the US has. You may call it Parliamentary hearing? I don't know, but its the same function.
edit on 8-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join