0
   

British Prime Minister Shows Absurdity Of Lefty Arguments

 
 
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 12:21 pm
Blair: World slept after 9/11

[size=8]Tuesday, July 26, 2005; Posted: 12:48 p.m. EDT (16:48 GMT) [/size]

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday that much of the world had dropped its guard to the threat of terrorism after the "wake-up call" of the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

Blair was speaking after meeting opposition leaders to discuss anti-terror legislation set to be introduced in the wake of this month's London bombings.

He said Britain would not give "one inch" to terrorists and said it was time to confront them "on every single level."

"September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again," he said.

"We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level. And not just their methods but their ideas," Blair said.

While rejecting suggestions he had claimed the London bombings had nothing to do with Iraq, Blair said there was no justification for terrorism.

"Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them to terrorism," Blair said.

"If it is concern for Iraq then why are they driving a car bomb into the middle of a group of children and killing them?" Blair said.

"They will always have a reason and I am not saying any of these things don't affect their warped reasoning and warped logic.

"But I do say we shouldn't compromise with it. Whatever justification these people use, I do not believe we should give one inch to them."

"There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, Iraq, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere."

Blair once again praised Londoners for their behavior in the aftermath of the July 7 attacks on the London transit system that killed 52 people plus the four bombers, and the failed bomb attacks of July 21.

"I'm not standing here and being absurd about it in the sense of saying people should not be concerned; of course they are going to be concerned and worried," he said.

"But I do think the way Londoners have responded has been magnificent ... because they have not allowed their worry and concern to overcome their determination to carry on with their lives. I think that's the best attitude."

CNN's European Political Editor Robin Oakley said Blair had delivered a "performance of great defiance and passion."

Following his talks with Conservative Party leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, Blair said he hoped final details of the anti-terror proposals would be presented to opposition parties in September.

Proposals under discussion included measures that would allow authorities to close down extremist Web sites and extend the period for holding terror suspects.

"I am very pleased that the cross-party consensus on the way forward is continuing," Blair said.

"I think when the main political parties present a united front then you send an important signal to the terrorists of our strength, our determination, our unity to defeat them."

Howard said that whatever measures are put before the House of Commons when it reconvenes in the autumn, they must be consensual proposals.

"There's a great desire, at a time when the country faces such great danger, to work together. We're all in this together, and we all believe it's very important to show that the country is united in response to the danger we face, and we hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on further measures that will enable us to deal with this threat more effectively," Howard told reporters.

"One of the principle objectives of the terrorists is to divide us, one from another. So far ... they have failed in that objective. It's important that they continue to fail in that objective. That's why we believe it is so important that we approach these difficult issues in a spirit of consensus, with the objective of reaching agreement wherever we possibly can," Howard said.

The opposition leader said his party is concerned about the proposal to increase the period of detention for suspects related to terror investigations from the current two weeks to three months.

"We see very considerable difficulties in that; that's a long time to hold someone without charge," Howard said.

He said that other items discussed were a proposal that would make intercept evidence admissible at trials and authorities ability to close down extremist Web sites.

Kennedy voiced concern that basic civil liberties might be compromised in the push to pass new anti-terror legislation, and also questioned the extension of detention proposal.

"How far that extension might or might not go, I think is something that will require further evidence," Kennedy said.

Proposed legislation put forth by the government also includes outlawing indirect incitement or the glorifying of terrorism, and making it illegal to prepare to commit terror acts and provide or receive terror training.

Other measures, including increased use of phone taps and other intercept evidence in court, are being considered.

Meanwhile, London transport workers warned they would consider striking unless steps were taken to improve security on the Underground system.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) Union is due to meet the network's operator and senior police officials on Wednesday and has said it will demand the introduction of guards on trains, more station staff and better emergency training and equipment for rail workers.

"Given the urgency of the situation and the fact that it can take up to a month to ballot, we will not be sitting on our hands," RMT General Secretary Bob Crow said in a statement.

Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,684 • Replies: 80
No top replies

 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 10:34 pm
Quote:
"Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them.......



...interesting.
It is obscene to claim that there is or ever has been a concern for Iraq.
Had one man not me so obscenely concerned with Iraq, this would not be such a mess in the first place.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 10:46 pm
I'd just like to point out the fact that Tony Blair is a Lefty himself.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 10:53 pm
Grand Duke wrote:
I'd just like to point out the fact that Tony Blair is a Lefty himself.


I'd just like to point out that if Tony Blair is on the Left then Maggie Thatcher was a democratic socialist.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 11:00 pm
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party"

Source: Labour's website

Although he is (somewhere in there) described as being "centrist".
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 11:10 pm
candidone1 wrote:
Quote:
"Let us expose the obscenity of these people saying it is concern for Iraq that drives them.......



...interesting.
It is obscene to claim that there is or ever has been a concern for Iraq.
Had one man not me so obscenely concerned with Iraq, this would not be such a mess in the first place.

You folks tell yourselves the same distortions over and over until you believe them. Invading Iraq was the wisest course of action, given the facts as then known. The evil dictator, Saddam Hussein had had both WMD and WMD programs, and had not fulfilled the obligations of his surrenger treaty to prove that he had destroyed both. One single WMD used one single time in a city could kill as many as a perhaps half million people, depending on which sort it was. After playing Hussein's games for about a dozen years, we went in to resolve the question of whether he had destroyed his doomsday weapons. Had we not gone in, and had he only been hiding them more effectively than before, a huge number of people might have died as a result, not to mention giving an evil dictator the power to blackmail the world. I await the typical liberal response that studiously avoids actually addressing anything I said.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 11:18 pm
We address what you say all the damned time. You always fail to address several issues: the first was that Hussein was contained, he couldn't use his weaons of mass destruction without bringing hellfire down on his head; second, "had he only been hiding them more effectively than before" presumes he had them, and that has been shown to be false--but only after a gross effusion of blood, at first hundreds of Americans and Englishmen, and thousands of Iraqis, the whole of it based on knowing lies by the administration; third, you never address the irrefutable fact that an invasion of Iraq was intended before the September 11th attacks ever took place, is a part of the PNAC agenda, of which organization Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle, among many others, were founding members; fourth, you never address the issue of so many other vile dictators slaughtering their citizens by the thousands, many known to harbor terrorists, while no one has ever been able to prove that Hussein harbored terrorists; fifth, North Korea has far more sophistication in the production of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems.

Your entire thesis is predicated upon your paranoia, conflated with your refusal to abandon your partisan support of a venal and selfish regime in Washington. What you say about Hussein depends on quite a few might-have-beens, whereas such things are and were long known about Iran and North Korea. The sorts of weapons of mass destruction used for terror purposes scenarios which you describe didn't need Hussein, still don't need anyone like him. Do you propose we invade Russia to assure that they don't pass out or lose track of their stockpiles.

You have no standard which is applicable across the board, you are fixated on Iraq. And, of course, you yourself don't have to go in harm's way, somebody else can do the dying.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 12:41 am
Grand Duke wrote:
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party"

Source: Labour's website

Although he is (somewhere in there) described as being "centrist".


Labour might be but Blair most certainly isn't. Hence the need to shove him out of the way to instal Brown :wink:
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 12:44 am
Setanta you took my breath away. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 01:30 am
Setanta wrote:
We address what you say all the damned time.

No, not very often. More often, my liberal board opponents either point out how often I have said the same things (as though they don't) and then move on without further comment, or engage in some random ad hominem and then move on without further comment. You yourself once limited your response to a post of mine on this topic by simply saying, "The sky is falling" or some such. Hardly an example of addressing what I say.

Setanta wrote:
You always fail to address several issues:

On the contrary. All of the items on your list below, I have addressed here many times, and, no, I won't find links for you. I will address them again now, though, since your arguments are so incredibly false.

Setanta wrote:
the first was that Hussein was contained, he couldn't use his weaons of mass destruction without bringing hellfire down on his head;

Incorrect. You can't contain someone with WMD, since he only needs to get one person with one WMD into your country to strike a crippling blow against you. Containment is a largely obsolete concept. As for bringing hellfire down on his head, he wouldn't necessarily. If someone like Hussein were to have a WMD smuggled into an American city and used, he could simply deny responsibility, express sympathy, and offer us aid. We still don't know who sent the anthrax through the mail. Imagine trying to pull evidence from the site of a nuclear fireball. He might someday be exposed or he might easily not.

Setanta wrote:
second, "had he only been hiding them more effectively than before" presumes he had them, and that has been shown to be false--but only after a gross effusion of blood, at first hundreds of Americans and Englishmen, and thousands of Iraqis,

Yeah, we know because we invaded. Had we not invaded, and had he still had them, many people could have died later.

Setanta wrote:
...the whole of it based on knowing lies by the administration;

What lies? The things you call lies in my experience don't rise to that standard. Anyway, even if Bush is the antichrist, there was enough information just in the superficial history of the events to give a reasonable probability that Hussein still had the WMD and/or programs. He had been caught lying about it before.

Setanta wrote:
third, you never address the irrefutable fact that an invasion of Iraq was intended before the September 11th attacks ever took place, is a part of the PNAC agenda, of which organization Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle, among many others, were founding members;

Yes, I have addressed this one a few times on A2K. My answer is: So they wanted to do the right thing and invade Iraq earlier, but allowed smaller measures to run their course first. Big deal.

Setanta wrote:
fourth, you never address the issue of so many other vile dictators slaughtering their citizens by the thousands, many known to harbor terrorists, while no one has ever been able to prove that Hussein harbored terrorists;

Yes, but most of them don't have WMD development programs. If any do, we ought to treat them the same way. I have answered this one probably dozens of times on A2K.

Setanta wrote:
fifth, North Korea has far more sophistication in the production of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems.

I would say that this is the one I have probably answered here the most often. We waited too long and now NK has the bomb. It's too late to invade. During the first hour of the invasion, NK could kill a million people. It was to prevent Hussein from achieving this level of near invulnerability that we invaded Iraq.

Setanta wrote:
Your entire thesis is predicated upon your paranoia,

Fear of the effect of WMD in the hands of someone like Hussein, is hardly paranoia. Just one such weapon could kill hundreds of thousands of people. If they started a plague, maybe more.

Setanta wrote:
conflated with your refusal to abandon your partisan support of a venal and selfish regime in Washington.

Why abandon politicians who hold mostly the same opinions I do?

Setanta wrote:
What you say about Hussein depends on quite a few might-have-beens, whereas such things are and were long known about Iran and North Korea.

NK, I've answered above. Iran is sort of a different type of animal at the moment, but ultimately, we would have to act to prevent them from arming themselves with WMD.

Setanta wrote:
The sorts of weapons of mass destruction used for terror purposes scenarios which you describe didn't need Hussein, still don't need anyone like him. Do you propose we invade Russia to assure that they don't pass out or lose track of their stockpiles.

Certainly not. My discussions have been about dictators who do not follow risk averse policies, particularly if they have connections to terrorism.

Setanta wrote:
You have no standard which is applicable across the board, you are fixated on Iraq. And, of course, you yourself don't have to go in harm's way, somebody else can do the dying.

My personal good or bad points have nothing to do with the validity of my posts. You know, I thought you were supposed to be smart, but what you've given me tonight seem the arguments of a child.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 06:24 am
"We are not going to deal with this problem, with the roots as deep as they are, until we confront these people at every single level. And not just their methods but their ideas," Blair said.


YOU GO TONY!!!!!!!!

That's absolutely correct. Confront THOSE PEOPLE!!!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 07:54 am
Good answers Brandon. It could be noted that most of the PNAC members are also Masons. Everyone knows the Masons are out to take over the world...
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:12 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Yeah, we know because we invaded. Had we not invaded, and had he still had them, many people could have died later.

(Oh, good. I've been needing to fertilize my lawn....)

Since he did not have them, and we did invade, many people have died sooner.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:27 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, we know because we invaded. Had we not invaded, and had he still had them, many people could have died later.


If, if, if, if. The fact is, he DID NOT have them. People have only died because George (me and my daddy want to rule the world) Bush did invade.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:28 am
The WMD issue.... Well then, in my opinion, there's only one valid thesis that could possibly counter the world according to Brandon:

Quote:
Worse things could happen than a mushroom cloud over an American city.



Isn't this what it all boils down to? You can either believe that this could be the worst thing that could ever, ever happen, and that everything else which is not as bad as that is therefore justified.

Or you can believe that even if that would happen, America would survive it just as it has survived 9/11, and that measures which turn the US from democracy into dictatorship are a far greater threat than anything else.

Am I mistaken?


Note: Please no utterly dumb replies like "So you want to see a nuke exploding in the US?"
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:34 am
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, we know because we invaded. Had we not invaded, and had he still had them, many people could have died later.


If, if, if, if. The fact is, he DID NOT have them. People have only died because George (me and my daddy want to rule the world) Bush did invade.


For 3 years the looney left has taken this incorrect position that has been argued to death yet falls on the deaf ears of the left,.

THE IRAQ WAR HAS A CONTINUATION OF GULF 1 DUE TO REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF THE CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT.

What the looney left fails to realize is that if the UN had continued on the path of ignoring violations, then the WMD issue would rise to a level of maybe hehas them to HE HAS THEM AND WILL USE THEM.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:43 am
Do you have to yell to make your point? No matter, your yelling only adds to your feeble arguement.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:59 am
Intrepid wrote:
Do you have to yell to make your point? No matter, your yelling only adds to your feeble arguement.


Which you can not dispute. So chirp on!
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 09:02 am
After 10 years in between, you call this a continuation of the gulf war? I don't have to dispute anything, you are doing a fine job of doing that all by yourself.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 09:19 am
Intrepid wrote:
After 10 years in between, you call this a continuation of the gulf war? I don't have to dispute anything, you are doing a fine job of doing that all by yourself.


Rolling Eyes

You are in denial and unable to objectively argue the point.

Have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » British Prime Minister Shows Absurdity Of Lefty Arguments
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 02:27:26