This board has been a little to quiet for while.

Is it time that Bush and Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

Do you think the use by the American Administrations of renditions are War Crimes and committed with full knowledge of American and British leaders ie. Blair and Bush and they are ultimately responsible?

Also in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of Iraq are should their action seen to be as the provocation for the rising toll of British, American and Iraqi deaths.

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

Do you think one should expect government leaders and ministers who have been responsible for massive foreseeable casualties should visit the hospitals to meet the casualties they have produced directly or indirectly by their actions?

tweenie, can you please imagine a suitable cliff and fall for a few people.

Awww. Isn't he cute.
Its lovely to have your own personal stalker. imagine being so devoted to someone that you have nothing else on your mind all day long other than to follow him around, hanging on his every word, and making yourself look silly for his amusement, with no regard at all to everyone laughing.
If he didn't do it, I'd probably have to employ someone to do it, its just so chic to have a stalker. all the celebs have them.
Thanks, Aldwickk.

be glad it is'nt the other way round....you'd be locked up for grooming.
;-)

Aint enough grooming equipment in the whole world!!!

Who's Really
Killing Iraqis?

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists
8,895

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans
60*

Is this what they mean by 'Muslim tolerance'?
By PETER HITCHENS, The Mail on Sunday

Last updated at 15:10pm on 18th September 2006

Reader comments (7)

Enjoy our blogsBenedict Brogan's blog
Baz Bamigboye's blog
Fashion blog
Peter Hitchens
Frank Barrett's travel blog
Don't miss todayNews: Illegal migrants working at the Home Office
Comment: A shabby handout for the Royal Mail
Water firm decides against drought order
Have your sayIn the wake of the sex offenders scandal, are you worried about your children's safety at school?
Yes - we don't know who is in schools
No - there's little or no danger
More polls Listen to this: "Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."

Or then again, this: "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends."

Then there is the instruction to fight against those who are not of the true faith "until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued".

All are direct quotations from the Koran, which Muslims believe to be the absolute word of Allah, and which cannot be altered.

If you seek even more ferocious attacks on Christianity and Judaism, you will find them in the Hadith, Islam's other great book of scripture.

Week after week in those lands where Muslims rule and Christians are a minority, the message pours out from the mosques: "God did not have a son."

All the central doctrines of the Christian faith are emphatically denied. Things are said about Jews and Christians, sometimes comparing them to pigs and monkeys, which would attract the attention of the Thought Police if they were uttered here.

Only recently an Afghan was threatened with death - the prescribed punishment under Sharia law - for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Christians in Pakistan live in constant fear of attacks on their churches and their homes, usually following false allegations that someone has burned a Koran.

Coptic Christians in Egypt suffer a similar misery. Christian Arabs who can afford to have been emigrating by the thousands to avoid increasing persecution by their Muslim neighbours.

Hypocritical fury

For years Liberals in the West have spread the myth of "Muslim tolerance". It does not exist and never did. Where Islam rules, other faiths must cringe in humiliated subjection.

These are facts. Is it not astonishing that this militant, angry religion, whose name means not "Peace", but "Submission", whose whole existence is based on the denial and rejection of its rivals, dares to get into a self-righteous rage over an obscure quotation in a dull academic lecture by the head of the Roman Catholic Church?

In Islam it is still the year 1427. They have had no reformation. The more Islamic a state is, the more its women are shrouded and confined, the more its minorities are despised - and the more freedom of thought and speech are crushed.

And yet the deputy leader of Turkey's Islamist ruling party, Salih Kapusuz, attacks the Pope for having "a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages".

If we bow to this manufactured, hypocritical fury, then we will already have lost one of the most important battles to face us.

While our silly leaders bleat and panic about terror threats, a far greater menace to our free societies comes from the growing power of Islam in our midst.

Much of that power results from the weak-kneed refusal of our own liberal elite to stand up for what is good about our Christian civilisation. Back the Pope.

bawoni- turn the other cheek.
Or get a gun and go do gods work, embrace the end times.
The only thing that makes me cringe, is all you religious freaks, blameing each other. Please for the love of god.. STFU.
LOL

God save me from the religions

Elliot Wave must have been reading this thread cos they,re calling a bear market(for the 20th time since 2003!!!) based on religious bickering

Agree with ...

"the British taxpayer is footing the bill for far more expensive and out-of-control cockups than Iraq. I refer, of course, to the NHS" - MM

"The problems of the NHS are endemic to our society. Almost all businesses of any size or stature are run by accountants." - hewittalan6

"The british armed forces are now so undermanned that troops move from one war zone to another with little chance of rest." - Marc

"Saddam a wmd, yea, armed by the west" - kivver

"The extremists of one period are often the heroes of another." - Fred1new

"The problem with having private involvement in services such as the health service is that any money saved by efficiency is not ploughed back into raising the standards of the service itself but into the company's pocket and out of the service. The "efficiency" often ends with pressures on other areas which do not have their financing increased." - Fred1new

I will have to be more carful what I type.

Would like to add government IT projects to the list of multi-multi-billion cockups.

At least there are broad agreements on thie thread (or lack of disagreement) on
(1) appalling government (Labour and Tory?) mis-managements of NHS.
(2) UK arm forces being stretched (not by defence of UK).

Both are far more important to most of us than Iraq ever has been and ever will be.

We should collectively do something about them ... it is, after all, our health and life at stake here ...

It is most difficult to judge people, societies, countries and cultures.
We can evaluate, ponder and speculate on the intentions, the actions and the consequences; all wrapped up in secrecies, camouflages and exaggerations.

So I try my "substitution" test, extrapolate from personal experiences and observations, lessons from history, opinions and insights from people, including this BB and this thread. It is laborious and time consuming, so my postings often seem inconclusive, exploratative, academic, cryptic and several dozen postings behind the current discussion ... Because the journey never ends.

To me, so far, for now, ...

Iraq's WMD is the most thoroughly debunked grandest conspiracy theory this decade. For a few it is most profitable (probably $several hundred billion) and most useful, amongst other benefits.

As for Blair, he is a vainglorist through and through, demand loyalty above all else put together, mediocre and weak. But, very human.
Pity? Yes. Anger? Maybe. Sympathy? Perhaps. Hatred? No.

Well, it is only IMHO :-)

anyone on here still believe in official 911 fairy tale...lol!

I was told that it didn't matter because it was in the past.

Fred a suggestion,

In your original post you have actually asked 6 questions and I think that Is why the Thread

constantly goes off topic to the headline.

Therefor It may be helpful to number each of your points so that when people respond they can refer to the Individual point you make. That In It's self may make the thread even more enjoyable to read.

Just a suggestion, what do you think?

fred..so the holocaust didn't matter either?

I was quoting what I believe was previously stated by others on this thread.

If people weren't judicially liable for their past acts then there would be no need for a legal system or enforcement systems.

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I think however a time limitation on the pursuit of the those implicated in "criminal activities" if not in involved in further criminal activity may be sensible for the majority of crimes, unless there is a useful deterring effect of future crimes by doing so.

September 20, 2006
Tunisia: Muslims Ban French Newspaper For Questioning Islamic Intimidation
Today, according to Deutsche Presse Agentur via The Raw Story and also from Reporters Without Borders (RSF) news comes that the French right-leaning newspaper Le Figaro has been banned in Tunisia. The reason for the ban is an article by French philosopher Robert Redeker (pictured), entitled: "Face aux intimidations islamistes, que doit faire le monde libre?" or "What should the free world do in the face of Islamist intimidation?".

The decision was announced by an official from the Tunisian government's interior ministry. RSF claims that the piece is aggressive against Muslims, but having spent nearly two hours translating it into English, I do not think it is aggressive. It is honest.

RSF states: "Without taking a position on the content of the op-ed piece, which was very aggressive towards Muslims, we point out that it is up to Tunisian readers to form their own opinion and not for the Tunisian authorities to filter information."

The Tunisian newspaper La Presse said that copies of the offending edition, which appeared yesterday, were removed because Redeker's article contained "harmful content offensive to the Prophet, Islam and Muslims." How long the ban will last is unknown.

There is no point arguing over whether or not the piece insults Islam, as my translation can be found beneath. For those who can read French, this is a link to the ORIGINAL TEXT.

I will merely state that Robert Redeker was born in 1954 in the south of France, in the Pyrenees. He teaches, writes articles and books, lectures around the world, and is a member of philosophical boards, he is on the editing board of Marianne and also the newspaper Tageblatt, which is published in Luxembourg.

His website (in French) can be found HERE, along with a list of his articles.

This is my translation of his article:
********************************
What should the free world do in the face of Islamist intimidation?

The reactions caused by the analysis of Benoit XVI on Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by the same Islam to stifle that which the West has, of more value than anything which exists in any Moslem country: the freedom to think and to express oneself.

Islam tries to impose on Europe its rules: opening of swimming pools at certain hours exclusively for women, prevention of caricaturing this religion, requirement of a particular dietary treatment for Moslem children in canteens, the battle to wear the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.

How can one explain the ban on the wearing of thongs on Paris-Beaches*, this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: the risk of "disturbing public order". Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent, faced with displays of beauty? Or were they scared of Islamist demonstrations by the brigades of virtue on the approaches to Paris-Beaches?

Moreover, the non-prohibition of the veil on the street is, by inviting complaints for upholding the oppression of women more properly "disturbing public order" than the wearing of a thong. It is not inappropriate to think that this ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. Or, at the very least, that it is the outcome of the insidious Muslim pressure on the senses: even those who protested the introduction of a "Jean Paul II Square" in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam attempts to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.

As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological scrutiny. Islam presents itself, in the image of defunct Communism, as an alternative to the western world. In the manner of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive nerve. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles the western conscience, attentive to others: to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor pretended to come from Moscow, today it comes from Mecca! Today again, intellectuals embody the outlook of the Koran, as they embodied the outlook of Moscow yesterday. They excommunicate people for Islamophobia, as yesterday they did for anti-communism.

In the opening up to others, specific to the West, a secularization of Christianity appears, whose bottom line is summarized as follows: the other person must always pass in front of me. The Westerner, the heir to Christianity, is to be the one to make his soul exposed. He runs the risk of passing himself off as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as signs of decadence.

These are the weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of "useful idiots", those of good consciences imbued with fine sentiments, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.

The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths as equally important as the tabus in France. On one hand: "Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities of political leader and military chief (...) He resorted to private war, then the current institution in Arabia (....) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man."

Additionally: "Mohammed profited from this success by eliminating from Medina, by means of massacre, the Jewish tribe which resided there, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour." Finally "After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, fine domestic, (called) Sawda, and also little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to embark on ten marriages jointly."

The exaltation of violence; a merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.

In fact, the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has made repentance. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, even well into the 18th century the (execution of the) knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church's favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is apparent: it is always possible to bring forth the evangelical values, the mild personage of Jesus against the diversions of the Church.

None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Turning back to Jesus is turning against the excesses of the ecclesiastic institution. Turning to Mahomet, by contradiction, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.

The stoning of Satan, each year at Mecca, is not just a superstitious phenomenon. It not only sets the scene for a rabble flirting with barbarity. Its scope is anthropological. Here in effect is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit himself to, emphasizing violence as a sacred duty in the heart of the believer.

This stoning, annually accompanied with deaths by trampling of the faithful, sometimes in several hundreds, is a ritual which nurtures archaic violence.

Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, in imitation of Judaism and Christianity, by neutralizing it (Judaism starts with the abandonment of human sacrifice, that is to say by entering into civilization, and Christianity transforms sacrifice in the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it can grow in the warmth. When Judaism and Christianity are the the religions whose rites conjure violence, delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion which, even in its sacred text, as well as in its banal rites, exalts violence and hate.

Hate and violence inhabit the book with which each Muslim is educated, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation are the methods used by an ideology intent on forcing hegemony, so too does Islam, to place its leaden cloak over the world. Benedict XVI suffered a cruel experience. In these times, one must call the West the "free world" compared to the Muslim world, for in these times, the enemies of the "free world", zealous functionaries of the Koran's outlook, swarm at its center.

Not new to the debate really, Barwoni.
Even in that most moderate of Muslim nations, the UAE, foreign newspapers are censored prior to release to the population. This is done via the use of a black marker pen over anything that Islam finds offensive, from news articles to page 3 girls.
The TV is only available through state controlled Arabsat, broadcasting censored programming, and shortened films, to remove offensive comment and the only ISP available is from the UAE equivilent of BT, who employ a team to block any site that does not conform. This ranges from the playtex site, less women in underwear turns us all into evil rapists to religious sites that are not Islamic, to any site intolerant of Muslims.
As I said, the most enlightened and liberal of the Islamic states.
Alan