I very much doubt that Blair will enter the Iraq Inquiry via the front door. He can get in to the QE2 Conference Centre from the back by passing through the Institute of Mechanical Engineers building. That seems pretty likely. A strong detachment armed with buckets of blood should watch that route.
Or he can arrive by an underground route using the spur to the QE2 conference centre from the old tunnel that connected Bomber Command (now known as The Citadel bunker) in Marsham St to the Cabinet Office and the MOD. As this tunnel network is an official secret I doubt they will want to risk him appearing mysteriously from nowhere, though.
Very good of you, Craig, I’m sure it will be of great utility to those concerned to ensure that the great man suffer no inconvenience.
Nobody expects the Spanish Extradition !
(Sigh. Wishful thinking, eh ?)
Or he can walk through the front door and tell idiots like you to get lost and stop whingeing.
So personal. Have we met ?
At least the hundreds of thousands of people whose deaths he caused in Iraq are very quiet now. Not a whinge from them.
Sorry, that was me replying to Eddie.
Craig, so were you just about to pretend to be Eddie?
“That seems pretty likely. A strong detachment armed with buckets of blood should watch that route.”
Why the weasel words, Craig? Do you want a “strong detachment” to be there or not?
What I’d like to know is why Eddie and Larry were in favour of the war on Iraq, and indeed still in favour of it.
What benefit was it to them?
Or do they just get their jollies watching thousands being slaughtered on Sky?
Because I do not want any physical harm to come to him, I would recommend that he adopts female Muslim dress complete with Burka, as do all his security guards
http://operationitch.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/burka.jpg
Tony
I don’t hold out any great hopes of the Blair criminal and his ilk being held to account.
They can only be held to account by other more powerful entities than the western alliance, or internally by the citizenry.
There are no more powerful entities than the western alliance and the internal citizenry are easily manipulated by more powerful internal forces, which have grown even more powerful under the Blair/Brown regime.
I well remember, years ago, Roy Jenkins remarking that Blair wasn’t very clever. I thought that a strange thing to say at the time, especially since Roy was something of a mentor in the earlier Blair years.
Maybe Roy just spotted something darker. He certainly had a dark expression on his face as he said it.
My idiot comment was to Craig, not Richard. Craig, I seriously think that you must be having another of your turns, what with this and the item above and your constant reference to “war criminals” – are you right in the head? This stuff is all a bit beneath you – I thought you were a more serious commentator.
As it’s all a well rehearsed show I expect him to arrive as a prima donna and exit as one.
“My idiot comment was to Craig, not Richard”.
I realised that just after I posted. You thought it was going to be the first followup ?
Could I ask, what would your idea of ‘serious’ look like ? I haven’t seen anything from you here that didn’t appear completely frivolous.
It’s quite interesting to note that three out of the five panel members are Privy Councillors. Two of them became members in 2009.
In the Lockerbie trial two of the three judges became members just before the start of the trial.
So does it mean that if you are member you bring in verdicts to please the Establishment/those that really rule the country?
If the following statement is true,
“The Privy Council allied with the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the Cabinet and Cabinet Intelligence Unit which is the real control over the security and intelligence services are part of the secret permanent unaccountable Government.”
then the Chilcot Inquiry will in effect with three members against two make a judgment on itself.
IBC says 98,000 unless you have PROOF of alternative numbers? That is about 1 in 330. Perhaps someone should carry out a poll and ask the Iraqis if they think the pain and suffering to get rid of Saddam was worth it.
Oh, they have.
Look at these results (Q8) carefully. The main change is from those who feel the invasion was “somewhat right” to “somewhat wrong”. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but this is hardly conclusive proof backing your wild asertions. Regardless of what you think, how about stopping for a moment to ask what Iraqis think?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
“Craig, I seriously think that you must be having another of your turns, what with this and the item above and your constant reference to “war criminals” – are you right in the head? This stuff is all a bit beneath you – I thought you were a more serious commentator.”
Perhaps because he’s starting to realize that EVERY SINGLE ONE of his supporters is a 911 conspiracy nut – or, as he put it, conspiraloon.
Interesting survey. The percentage of people who think the invasion was ‘absolutely right’ or ‘somewhat right’ has gone down, from 49% in 2004 to 42% in 2009. The percentage who think the invasion was ‘absolutely wrong’ or ‘somewhat wrong’ went up from 39% in 2004 to 56% in 2009.
Other than that, 72 percent believed that al-Zaidi, the journalist and shoe-thrower, was a hero (10 percent thought he was also a criminal, but still a hero).
IBC have said that it and the Lancet both agree that deaths ‘skyrocketed’ after the invasion. IBC is not a count of deaths; it is a count of reports of deaths in the media.
What point was being made?
Larry,
Craig wrote “sorry folks I just deleted the whole “truthers v conspiraloons” comment spat because I want to keep this one somewhere near its important topic.”
Whilst I may be wrong, I thought the people who he was referring to as “truthers” were the posters (who though they maybe wrong) were posting what they thought was the truth.
Logically, if true, this would mean that the conspiraloons was a reference to yourself and angrysoba.
Tony
IBC ? Lancet !
Lancet Lancet Lancet !!
Lancet ! !! !!!
Just because you didn’t respond last time this got dragged up a mere couple of days ago.
“How about stopping for a moment to ask what Iraqis think?”
Like Q8 in the pdf you link to, where a majority (56%) say the invasion was absolutely wrong ?
I don’t remember hearing Baha Mousa’s dad saying that, when the Beeb waved a microphone at him, that’s for sure.
Tony, no, no, angrysoba and I haven’t pushed any conspiracy – only you and your kind have done so. I think Craig must be quite embarrassed about this, as he doesn’t by into your crazy, thoroughly debunked “911 inside job” non-claims.
IBC 98,000 – Lancet 1 million plus. What the statisticians would call a significant variance,so someone is wrong. As I’ve said before, doctors meddling in politics is a recipe for disaster. The Lancet is not credible. Read the IBC website. their methodology is credible and realstic. It is not just media reports and you know it.
“IBC 98,000 – Lancet 1 million plus. What the statisticians would call a significant variance,so someone is wrong. As I’ve said before, doctors meddling in politics is a recipe for disaster. The Lancet is not credible. Read the IBC website. their methodology is credible and realstic.”
You are playing at false dichotomies. Because one methodology is credible, does not indicate that another isn’t.
As I said last time this was raised, my understanding is that they measured different things. Maybe you missed that bit ? Or do you disagree ? Why ? About how one tried to count ‘excess mortality’ and the other documented individual cases ? Do you really expect these 2 numbers to be the same ? Surely not ? So, why do you think they exclude each other ?
I don’t know, either, whether the people behind either of these studies, or any other studies, might have had political motivations, as you suggest.
Or whether it would be discreditable if they did, as you seem to imply (are you actually suggesting falsification ?) But the way you’re trying to treat it like a football match (“My team, right ! Your team, wrong !”) makes me suspect that you do.
Which is understandable, that people might want to deny the implications, because they’re horrible. And, of course, the excess mortality didn’t stop as soon as the Lancet team went home. But I do think it’s a mistake to give way to the temptation to pretend it’s not like that.
And of course, me not being a statistician, it might be that someone really has “disproved” it, I wouldn’t necessarily know. Certainly, lots of people claim that lots of other people have debunked it. All I can say for sure is that the claims I’ve seen so far had even less grip of logic than I do. And the last time I checked, the original authors appeared to have debunked their debunkers and not been redebunked at all; the “debunking” was 99% people repeating what they’d been told, rather than anything of their own work.
Shorter: I suspect bad faith, somewhere. It shouldn’t get a hearing because the numbers are incovenient.
Too long, sorry. I might just as well shorten it by deleting it all, it’s not going to make any difference.
Whatever he says and lies about does not matter, I would love to see his face coimng out of the Conference centre and there stands one allmighty huge guillotine.
Sadly i live near Norwich and have no access to such methods of disposing opf scoundrels and blue blooded bon viveurs.
This inquiry is becoming a farce and it is becoming increasingly untenable that the Chilcot team should get paid for mediocre acting in a this third rate production.
eddie,
As you seem to be totally obsessed by numbers and the credibility of doctors I have spoken with doctorsforiraq and they (the Iraq physicians) confirmed around 655,000 excess deaths from March 2003 to July 2006 and a further 318,000 excess deaths to July 2009. The original survey conducted was overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health and the latest survey by Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.
According to the survey results, Iraq’s mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate “excess deaths.”
A similar study of excess infant mortality was conducted by Dr Gideon Polya in which he recorded the post-invasion Iraqi under-5 infant deaths total 0.6 million as determined from UN Population Division data. 90% of these under-5 infant deaths have been avoidable and are due to gross Occupier violation of the Geneva Conventions (see: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ ).
Fuck the numbers! March 20, 2010 will mark the 7th anniversary of an illegal, utterly unjustified, war criminal invasion of Iraq by US, UK and Australian forces.
Polya has said, ‘post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths total 1.3 million and refugees total 4 million in a continuing Iraqi Holocaust and Genocide.
After the defeat of Nazi Germany in the 1939-1945 World War 2 conflict (that commenced with the Nazi German invasion of Poland in September 1939), the defeated Germans adopted a post-war and post-Holocaust protocol that can be summarized by the acronym CAAAA (C4A), specifically Cessation of the killing, Acknowledgment of the crimes, Apology, Amends and Assertion “never again to anyone”.
Unfortunately, unlike the Nazi Germans, the pro-Zionist, anti-Arab anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, imperialist war criminals of the US Alliance are comprehensively violating the 5-point CAAAA (C4A) protocol by continuing the war in Occupied Iraq; refusing to acknowledge the horrendous carnage; declining to apologize; refusing to make amends; and making it clear that they will continue and indeed expand war in Occupied Afghanistan and the North West Provinces of Pakistan.
Mark,
Ummm, something went wrong in your last para. I think you’ll find the Nazi Germans refused to apologise, continued the war etc too.
Yes – watch Downfall – highly impressive. I didn’t even notice it was all in German. If a film is any good you read the subtitles almost subliminaly
I was going to post about NAZI involvement in 9/11 but didn’t want to offend the Muslims, cos they think they did it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0
Tony
I’m amazed that studies into excess deaths due to war from the John Hopkins institute and the Lancet were fully accepted – when it was used to wage war in Kosova and Sierra Leone. But when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, an even more conservative approach by the same institutions are suddenly left-wing propaganda which can be waved away.
Mark: you wrote “Iraq’s mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people” – but I wonder, what was the mortality rate before the medieval siege we imposed called “sanctions”? That genocidal policy concerning which Clinton’s M. Albright admitted had caused 1/2 million deaths of _children alone_ by 1995, was “a price worth paying” – so surely that sways the “normal” figure of the year before the invasion somewhat?
I’m still puzzled why enthusiastic supporters of the war like “wide stance” Larry etc. didn’t sign up to get on down there and bring peace ‘n freedom to the grateful masses, instead of stopping at home, beating off to war-porn for the entire duration.
“enthusiastic supporters of the war like “wide stance” Larry”
Glenn, why, if I call you out on your silly, immature conspiracy theories, must it mean that I ever supported any war?
Have you even seen how anti-war people treat you loons when you show up at their rallies?
Mark Golding, I am not obsessed with numbers, just the truth unlike you. Fuck the numbers indeed! Let’s just resort to hysteria and tantrums shall we?
From IBC’s website front page: “Data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents.”
I rest my case.
No you twit; they start from the media reports. Ring them tomorrow, or I will.