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?

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

LOL hewitt...........

My hero Mr Chavez below...

Address to the United Nations

Rise Up Against the Empire

By HUGO CHAVEZ

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.

Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, 'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.'" [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "It's an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

The point I was trying to make is best made with reference to a story that sticks in my mind.
In the early summer of 2001, I was in the UK and I read (with interest, because I worked there) about a British man arrested in the Dubai Gold Souk (market) for wearing womens clothing. the story in the British press ran along the lines of him going to a fancy dress party (which he confirmed at his trial) and how stupid he was to do such a thing, which he must have been aware was potentially offensive to islamic beliefs. Now that i agree with.
A couple of days later i returned to Dubai, and he was still front page news there. The story there ran that he was a European pervert, here to undermine Islam and spread decadence and evil throughout their lives. There were even letters published calling for his execution and an editorial demanding severe punishment, but stopping short of a death penalty, for international considerations.
The trial reports in the papers mentioned not one word of his mitigation, and he was sentenced to a prison term and deportation. The news and trial reports in non UAE papers were blacked out.
I have no sympathy with him for his plight. it was self inflicted and he was terribly stupid. He deserved what he got. the point is that I was almost unique in that region, in having an idea what it was all about. The locals, and ex-pats who had not been home, had only the official Arab version of events to go on. The ones that depicted him as a perverted monster, not a stupid man making a dreadful error of judgement. He may well have been a perverted monster. I do not know, but I know it should not be up to the press to make that decision.
Now transcribe that tale to the world events of the last 5 years, and at least in the West we have access to every single viewpoint and we can make our own minds up. If we lived in the middle east, we would be very lucky to see any detail of anything that did not support the Islamic view of the world, as dictated by some extremely dangerous and conservative men.
Berate T&G as much as you wish, but they do not prevent us from drawing our own conclusions and disagreeing. They do not use the machinary of an entire country to silence free speech.
I know which regime I would trust to give us something vaugely resembling the truth.
Alan

hewittalan6

Any man who calls another man cute must be gay, i bet you only got married because you didn't want to be outed.

Get a life.
I would not dream of assuming you are a man!!!
Maggot perhaps, but definitely not a man.
I'm about to write a suggestion to MAM that they add a Janet & John bit to the thread headers, so people like you, who are a little hard of thinking, can work out what the thread is about.
Goodbye, irritating little inconsequential nothing.

hewittalan6

People reading your reply will have noted that you have not denied what i said, attack is not always the first line of defence.

Why should I deny it. it may be true and it may not, who, other than you, cares.
Defence???? Homosexuality is something to be ashamed of and defended???
Well done. You have just alienated about 1 in 8 people on here, and probably many more heterosexuals.
I really enjoy your little visits. They make me look so good. And that is quitr difficult to do. Ask my wife. (or fred).
Alan

H and A, Why don't both of you ignore one another for a while. Allow one another to breath a little freely.

H and A, Why don't both of you ignore one another for a while. Allow one another to breath a little freely.