Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Mar 19 2023 11:19pm)
Blair is complicit in war crimes. This is not a conspiracy.
Ask David Kelly how Alistair Campbell instructed him to provide a pretense to invade.
Deflect all you want, your boys in Westminster are some top-grade Eton schooled warmongers, and you bend at the knees and vote em in everytime :lol:
Tony Blair went to a state school you simple minded SNPbot. As did most of his cabinet and the current Labour shadow cabinet.
Quote (fender @ Mar 20 2023 12:06am)
can you link me that documentary? does it make a credible case that they intentionally and successfully mislead blair? or could the evidence (which we obviously all know was bs today) have been bad, but he was in the know or at the very least suspected it, and just "accepted" it regardless to have plausible deniability, in case the decision he was going to make anyway turned out to be a mistake? because that's my impression - and it's what many people speculated at the time.
again, there were many parties that rejected the flimsy "evidence" and insisted on a diplomatic solution - despite all the pressure from america.
to be clear, i'm not saying the evidence being bad is conjecture, i'm saying i find it doubtful that the head of intelligence, regardless of political affiliation, could just easily dupe a PM into such a meaningful and terrible decision with some fake evidence - as if blair, who definitely isn't a moron, didn't have any loyal high-ranking sources within the intelligence community who advised him according to their best knowledge, rather than their own personal agenda.
even if i gave blair all the benefit of the doubt, which you so generously grant him for obvious reasons, i'd still say that an ICC that wanted to be a meaningful and impartial institution should have tried him (as well as heads of british intelligence)...
regarding saddam: he obviously was a terrible human being, a cruel despot, a mass murderer, who most definitely "deserved" to die - but let's not forget who backed and armed him in the first place, and for which reasons (ofc the US and the UK, in order to attack iran and regain control over their oil), and how just deposing him, without a sound strategy for iraq's future, that would predictably plunge the whole region (which hussein undeniably "stabilised", albeit by cruel and inhumane means) into utter chaos.
maybe just invading the country based on lies and rage, trying to hunt that fucker down while leaving behind a trail of death and devastation, wasn't the way to go about it...
Dearlove/Scarlett didn't intentionally mislead Blair, they just said our intelligence points to existence of WMD. Yeah, Blair probably didn't ask for details of every single source, but no leader does. They ask 'how sure are you' and if they say a strong view then you have to take it into account. The bottom line is that MI6 are more responsible for confirming the accuracy of their sources than a PM is.
What 'obvious reasons'? Please tell me how biased I am because Blair is British when I have been nothing but scathing of the last 13 years of government...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m001k0ch