Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

walter sobchak

Tony Blair

8 posts in this topic

According to tony Blair the takeover of towns, cities and provinces in iraq by radical Islamic fundamentalists has nothing at all to do with his and George w bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq but because we(the US, UK&nato) didn't bomb Syria. Absolutely unbelievable that a. This man can think this but also b. that he's given a platform by the British media to spew such nonsense and lies. I can only surmise from this that he's a deranged individual or is on the payroll of the military industrial complex and war contractors or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once saw a guy in Hyde Park (speakers corner) and his entire speech consisted of saying 'Tony Blair. ..diamond thief' over and over. It was bizarrely entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what his mental state is .I think he has told too many lies regarding Iraq that he believes they are true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that, having spent a number of years in the shadows, Mr Blair has rarely been out of the tv spotlight for the last three or four weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cynic in me can't help wondering if Tony has any financial interest in some arms manufacturing companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it in the Sunday Times.

 

He makes some good points. It is hard to believe that Iraq would not have ended up in a civil war anyway. It is also true that the body count in Syria is probably higher than in Iraq despite being a shorter conflict.

 

However he seemed to think that ISIS would have died a death had we intervened in Syria. That is simply insane. Going on past interventions, the number of Islamist nutters has gone up not down after intervention.

 

He has also (correctly IMO) identified that the region has problems built into it and attacked the tendency to blame ourselves for its issues as Westerners are wont to do. But there is no "If I had but seen that before 2003 then maybe I'd have acted differently". Why repeat the mantra about "the religion of peace" whilst in office and only now admit that certain sections of Islam are the central problem? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread tidied up, all grossly off-topic stuff removed.  Please keep on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.