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: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 

Then again you must admit the american goverment dont seem to see the difference between the two




posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 

Then again you must admit the american goverment dont seem to see the difference between the two






I think the USG should be eradicated, they are nothing more than thieves, extortionists, and murderers! I'm just a person who backs up the founding documents ( Constitution in this case ), where the law of the land supersedes personal opinion. That way there is no labels, or judgments passed on by a persons thoughts or views.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Funny, real funny. You are trying to put the normal criminal process onto what Blair has done.

As much as I understand your thought process, it really is too much of an effort to entertain.

There is a big difference between robbing a car and ordering your countrys troops to go into a foregin country, murder the leader and kill thousands of innocent civilians.

As much as I appreciate your opinion, I am not in the habit of going around in circles.

Hilter, Milosevic, Pol Pot didnt actually kill the people but they did give the orders.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish Matador
 


Well, no its not hard to entertain? I understand you don't agree with Blair or Bush for that matter. Hell, I don't think we should have gone to war either, but what we " think" and what we can "prove" are on two completely different cases. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm trying to inquire on what evidence does anyone have that would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that any crime was committed ....PERIOD.

If you can't submit proof, answer this question then? Is a person guilty regardless of the crime without evidence to support the claim? Your answer will be the basis on whether to take any of your comments seriously.

A simple yes or no will suffice~



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Daffodils.
edit on 8/12/10 by TedHodgson because: I couldnt think of anything productive to say in response to the question so answerd with an un-related random remark that was sure to get a few smiles.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Or Dilligaf~



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


No thats a nasty response to my random and innocent remark



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Not nasty:
Do
I
Look
Like
I
Give
A
F#$%

Dilligaf



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I knew what it meant, And it isnt exactly a nasty comment how?
Obviously its all a matter of oppinion,.. therefore my original statement was proven correct and you proved yourself wrong by stating that an oppinion can be an obvious fact deliberated over by two poeple, Therefore and i conclude there is no point in continuing this conversation on why blair may/may not be a war criminal because theres no way of proving either of us correct other than through the higher belief in our own oppinions. Aristotle would be proud ~



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Would you mind being specific on how intials are nasty?

And do you plan on using proper spelling or no? its opinion, not oppinion?

Just exactly how did I prove myself wrong, you and your followers have yet to submit proof/facts that claim Blair is a criminal. No proof, your argument doesn't hold any merit.
edit on 8-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Oh turnips the old spelling critisism post...the last desperate attempt to claim overall thread superiority *sigh*



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


And yet you fail to answer the simplest of questions~

Not able to conjure up a response? hmm...sad~


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



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
When Tony Blair and George Bush decided to abandon the United Nations and launch their aggressive war against Iraq in March, 2003 they committed themselves to the most serious of all breaches of International law, “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”, as defined by the prosecutors at Nuremberg following the defeat of the Nazis.
When someone breaches law it = Crime.
Crime (krm)
n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

What he and bush did was a violation of law, equal to Crime.

www.mirror.co.uk...

"The claim came after two senior Foreign Office lawyers, Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, told the Iraq inquiry the invasion was against international law and amounted to a “crime of aggression"

www.thefirstpost.co.uk...

There we go...
Funny how the first search against him not been a criminal on google comes up with a GayandRight news page



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


I didn't ask if you could use a dictionary online to define words. But what ever makes you feel better.
But with that said, under the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 states:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

source: www.usconstitution.net...

The above is US Law, which prevents any US president of any " criminal " allegations. Which prevents any unwarranted prosecution with out the right to " due process".
Now since The British Constitution is unwritten in one single document, unlike the constitution in America or the proposed European Constitution, it is referred to as an uncodified constitution. Your Supporters of your constitution believe that the current way allows for flexibility and change to occur without too many problems.

Alas, we are right back to the lack of substantiated evidence for your argument to hold merit.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
But then again you have you to prove that he isnt, No president or ruler should be protected/hidden by words, The right to free speech will reign, and it is, You just have to look at all the pictures of protesters that agree with me you in some way suggest through your questioning that im the only one.
Convince them, The news article i posted last which you clearly were unable to read shows that there is a rock solid case against him, Stop it now with the oppinions, oppinions are what keep the world broken,



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TedHodgson
But then again you have you to prove that he isnt, No president or ruler should be protected/hidden by words, The right to free speech will reign, and it is, You just have to look at all the pictures of protesters that agree with me you in some way suggest through your questioning that im the only one.
Convince them, The news article i posted last which you clearly were unable to read shows that there is a rock solid case against him, Stop it now with the oppinions, oppinions are what keep the world broken,








Your first comment is very true! In a court atmosphere one must be proven he isnt guilty of alleged crimes. So I agree with you there.
Your other comment about pictures of protesters and what not, hold no valid bearing on criminal charges. Just because a person is protesting something, doesn't make him/her right?
You stated that opinions keep there world broken, not true. Wouldn't the very lack of free speech only suggest a society in which we all are submissive?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Free speech works when poeple find a common oppinion/common ground on which thier oppinions are based, but if poeple truly thought for themselves without influence, chances are nobody would find common ground to speak with each other about without an argument forming.
Dont get me wrong im all up for free speech and voicing yourself against oppression, But there is allways a different view that poeple will have that doesnt necceserilly work with your oppinions on the subject and that should be respected and taken into account



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


Very much so....thats what makes debates and simple conversations great, different perspectives allows for different paths into ones psyche.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


whey! im glad weve found some common ground
C'mon ill buy you a pint



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join