The Chilcot Enquiry: A Considered Response


Advertisements

25 comments

  • Britain seems to be suffering a current events overload at the moment. It’s a year’s news in a week.

    • Conveniently timed referendum/Report. And conveniently timed attempted Labour coup.

  • What decided me against the Iraq war was finally my favourite author, the late George MacDonald Fraser.He regarded Blair as a war criminal for what he’d done in Serbia.

  • I think Dr Gabb (intentionally or not) has it right: Killer, not war criminal. I make the distinction because I don’t like the concept of ‘war crimes’. I realise that the concept has some antiquity and an established legal basis in customary international law, but I don’t like it. It erodes sovereignty and criminalises policy decisions, potentially hamstringing our defence in the future. Whether we want to accept it or not, there are situations in which a preemptive war might be necessary, it’s just that this was palpably not the case with Iraq (or any of Blair’s other wars).

    “War crimes” are in any case not a real crime, for two reasons – first, because war itself is an exercise in force and fraud, albeit sometimes necessary, and so to speak of a ‘war crime’ is nonsensical and oxymoronic; second, because a “war crime” is just an invented legal term that exists for political and ideological reasons, often for the benefit of the victor or as a result of political manoeuvering, not an organic crime as are things such as treason, sedition, murder, manslaughter, rape, fraud and abuse of public office. If a military commander decides to massacre an entire village, that is murder and in my view it should be tried as such. If a politician, as in the case of Blair, decides to prosecute wars without a sound reason, and as a result civilians and military personnel are killed, that is murder and manslaughter.

    Blair should be charged with:

    1. TREASON.

    1.1. Prosecuting unnecessary wars in the interests of a foreign power, Israel, and at the behest of agents of a foreign power, Israel.

    1.2. Working with subversive elements, including foreign enemies, to undermine the racial, ethnic and cultural basis of Britain and subvert the British constitution and the will of the ethnic British people.

    2. SEDITION

    Working to undermine the racial, ethnic and cultural basis of Britain and subvert the British constitution and the will of the ethnic British people.

    3. MURDER

    The murder of civilians in the various wars fought.

    4. MANSLAUGHTER

    The deaths of British soldiers.

    5. CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

    Misleading Parliament about the reasons for Iraq and other wars.

    6. ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE

    Arising from the above.

    • I’ve never really thought about the special classification of war crimes before, but on reflection you’re probably right, because prosecution in these cases always turns out to be justice skewed in favour of the victors.

      There is the problem of jurisdiction, of course. Blair couldn’t be tried in the British criminal justice system for the murder of people in Iraq. But I’d be more than happy to see him extradited there to face justice for mass murder. Being a multiculturalist, he’d be the last person to suggest that British standards of justice and punishment should apply to killers of Muslims in their own country. That would be judicial imperialism. He has done more than anyone else to hasten the arrival of Sharia law in his own country, so it’s fitting that he should get a taste of Britain’s future at first hand.

  • In other news (this is another good day to bury bad news) the NHS database has been scrapped.

  • Blair is a piece of traitorous scum. Disregard all his bullshit about doing the best thing for this country. He did what he did for personal gain. He and that scrag of a wife of his have no higher ambition than getting as much money as they can, ‘whatever’ it takes. He should be put on trial, and then put against a wall.

    • He did what he did for personal gain.

      If only! If he were merely another piece of Westminster scum lining his own pockets, he would be relatively harmless. But on top of that, he probably did more damage to Britain than any other Englishman in history.

      • They’re our very own Clintons.

  • Of course he did it for personal gain, you fool. Or are you stupid enough to believe that he actually thought he was acting in the best interests of the country?

    • Personal gain and the destruction of his country were his two motivating forces.

    • Enoch's Eyebrow

      …he was acting in the best interests of the country?

      It depends what country you’re talking about.

      • He thought he was acting in the best interests of Israel – and he was right, he was.

        Has Mr Blair been granted Israeli citizenship? I imagine that a lot of our politicians have been afforded this dubious privilege, in secret. Secret citizenship of that bandit state will be the cumulative ‘reward’ for going along with some Mossad blackmail scheme or it will be a ‘guarantee’ after a long career of faithfully accepting bribes (i.e. ‘contributions’) from luminaries among the Zionist lobby. Israel is a haven from international war crimes tribunals, as we should be. The same with the United States, who – quite rightly – refuse to sign the relevant treaties, and have probably provided Mr Blair and certain others with covert assurances.

        As it happens, I would defend in principle Israel’s right to fight for its existence, including using lies and propaganda, just the same as any other nation-state should be permitted to. But our stance should be even-handed. I would not defend any British politician who sought to send our young men to fight aggressive wars for Israel. The fault is not with the Israelis, but with our own traitor class. Blair in particular has committed multiple counts of treason.

  • I don’t think Blair did it for personal gain. He did it because he believed, as an uber-Progressive, that he could “reform” the world. By force. And thus go down in history as the Messiah he believes himself to be.

    Money isn’t the root of all evil. Hitler didn’t do it for the money, Stalin didn’t do it for the money, and neither did Blair.

    • Enoch's Eyebrow

      What about the fragrant Cherie, the passionate socialist, devout Catholic and New-Age dabbler?

  • No, not everything is done for the love of money. Those who pay the likes of Blair have all the money they need. Their aims are much more sinister.

  • Tony Blair: another advocate of “gun control” who proved to be a mass killer.

    It seems to be a bit of a pattern doesn’t it?

  • Enoch's Eyebrow

    He might be a killer, but he’s a very rich killer. There’s a lesson for you there, Dr Gabb.

    Levy first met Tony Blair at a dinner party in 1994, hosted by Israeli diplomat Gideon Meir, the two having a common friend in Eldred Tabachnik, a senior barrister (now a QC and a former president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews) […] They soon became close friends and tennis partners. Levy ran the Labour Leader’s Office Fund to finance Blair’s campaign before the 1997 general election and received substantial contributions from such figures as Alex Bernstein and Robert Gavron, both of whom were ennobled by Blair after he came to power. Levy himself was created a life peer on 23 September 1997 as Baron Levy, of Mill Hill […] He has been described by The Jerusalem Post as “undoubtedly the notional leader of British Jewry”. He was a founding member of the Jewish Leadership Council, the leadership of UK Jewish community. Levy has close ties with Israeli political leaders. His son, Daniel Levy, was active in Israeli political life, and has served as an assistant to the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and to Knesset member Yossi Beilin. Daniel is now based in the UK and is head of the Middle East Department of the European Council of Foreign Relations. Levy has praised Blair for his “solid and committed support of the State of Israel” and “his commitment to the peace process”.

    Lord Levy

    • I have said on numerous occasions that this is not a forum for the discussion of alleged Jewish misconduct.. We defend without qualification the right of Stormfront to publish, but do not regard ourselves as its overflow. Please bear this in mind, or cease posting comments here. This is a warning I do not propose to repeat.

      • It’s hard to have a discussion of Blair’s prosecution of the Iraq war without at least considering the question of Jewish/Israeli influence.

      • Enoch's Eyebrow

        The Libertarian Alliance is passionately devoted to the defence of Britain against malaria. However, it does not wish irrational bigots to derail the discussion by introducing irrelevant topics such as mosquitoes, protozoa and stagnant water.

        We defend without qualification the right of Stormfront to publish, but do not regard ourselves as its overflow.

        I didn’t know Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucer and T.S. Eliot were regulars at Stormfront. Is mention of their work frowned on here too, or only the crimethinkful portions of it?

  • But…but…but… you are a ‘libertarian’ – are you not? I thought that was something to with defending freedom. My mistake.

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise”. Voltaire

  • Back in 1997, I was your typical liberal. I knew little about the world, about politics, about concepts of how the world works and what may be going on. I thought I knew it all though. I had been processed through the school system, learning about harmony, togetherness, our guilt over slavery, and so on and so forth.

    I was your typical northerner too – I voted Labour because my mother and father voted labour, and because their parents did. It was seen as weird or strange to even consider doing anything else. I was still very young, idealistic, and was very impressed by Mr Blair. At the time, I was happy he got into office.

    It was all “Cool Britannia”, a new broom for what seemed like a dusty old floor. It was smooth, it was slick, well oiled. He appeared sincere and ‘at pains’ to “do the right thing” with anything he talked about. He seemed good and very convincing.

    In my naivety though, I had NO idea whatsoever what he was, what his real agendas were, or even why I would oppose them at that time. I therefore bought into the whole narrative about the middle east, the ‘threats’ in general – and although I did not want the war to happen, I fell hook line and sinker for the “45 minutes” and WMD.

    We were told we had to strike now, or we would be struck down ourselves. It was that which changed my mind, and led me to believe that action had to be taken.

    In hindsight, I am extremely embarrassed about this naivety and how easily I was manipulated. Only later did I start to understand the world better, what was going on, and why. It was only then I knew what was really at stake, what Fabians were, and so on and so forth.

    I looked at past interventions with equal hindsight, such as Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo – and found myself taking the polar opposite side to that I had been told by the BBC and the government as a teenager.

    I guess that I am far from alone, and that it still happens today with millions of people – and will tend to happen again and again. My views of Blair are extremely different to the ones I had on his election day, to say the least.

    So much evil and unnecessary strife and poison has been done by the so called “liberal do gooding” masses, by supporting those they see as being “righteous” and, as they say now, “on the right side of history”. Only, quite often, they were on the wrong side of history and have made the world a much nastier and harder place.

    Like with Blair, his activities with the war, immigration, his money…… watching the “Blair Rich Project” TV documentary the other week, what perversely struck me more than anything else was it was too late now. It has happened. He has also made his money, had his life. He will not face serious retribution.

    I can only hope that, like Sean, we can find a way to overthrow this current system, snap out of the traps that lead people to be the person that I was, so that we can oust these false gods of “values” and “virtues” (and such) which continue to drive disaster and horror for the future.

    I don’t put faith in politics to do this, but if I did, in hindsight to my own experience, raising the voting age to 25 may be a better start than the often heard appeals to lower it to 16….but of course, the very reason they would want to do this, is to continue fooling people until it is “too late” and “old news”.

    • I think most of us have had a similar learning experience. It is the point at which we realize we were conned all our lives by the media, the education system, the entertainment industry, etc.

    • A fine comment, CB. It deserves far more than just a “thumbs up.” Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s