Tough on Christian Socialism, tough on the causes of Christian Socialism?
|
Tony Blair, former Prime Minister, now ironically Peace Envoy to the Middle East, the man
who took Britain to 5 wars in his time as our
dear leader with his own brand of Christian Socialism, is to appear again at the Chilcot
committee.
"Christianity is a tough religion, even though it may not always be practised as such. It
places a duty, an imperative, on us to reach our better self and to care about creating a
better community to live in. It is not utilitarian - though socialism can be explained in
those terms. It is judgemental. There is right and wrong. There is good and bad. We all know
this, of course, but it has become fashionable to be uncomfortable about such language. But
when we look at our world today and how much needs to be done, we should not hesitate to make
such judgements. And then follow them with determined action. That would be Christian
socialism."[1]
In January Mr Blair defended his decision to take the country to war, saying he had no
regrets about it. Mr Blair and other witnesses will now appear again between 18th January
and 4th February 2011. In seven hours of questioning earlier this year, Mr Blair said the
Iraqi regime posed a danger to international security and he would take the same decision
again to take part in military action.[2]
As the old saying goes, "the world's run by fake Christians and politicians" and Blair was not only a politician but he's also a fake
Christian in my opinion. You can use either of the following examples as proof. "Love they neighbour", not bomb the fuck out of innocent civilians and
also Blair said to a friend whilst on holiday, "the main religions are about the same", I've not heard the Pope spreading this as his message
for the masses. Blair's last saying shows he has about as much conviction in his faith as the Pope does when he rides around behind his special
bullet proof glassed Pope mobile. In my opinion whatever Tony Blair says can not be believed, he is a proven liar. This is the man who has previously said:
"Mine is the first generation able to contemplate the possibility that we may live our entire
lives without going to war or sending our children to war."
Tony Blair
"The threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological,
potentially nuclear weapons capability - that threat is real."
Tony Blair
“A day like today is not a day for soundbites, really. But I feel the hand of history upon
our shoulders. I really do.”
Tony Blair
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/socialists-who-would-valiant-be-1499236.html
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11944712
Blair at the Iraq War Inquiry
Tony Blair appeared infront of Chilcot at the Iraq Inquiry for a 2nd time on January 21st 2011. My first impression of the day was
that Blair looked fucking happy to be back infront of the camera and especially the media, he even paused for photos on the way in.
An admission of war crimes or just a vain bastard? I also noticed that Blair was very keen to dismiss everyone else's evidence that
had been given before the Inquiry for example Sir Stephen Wall's.
Sir Roderic Lyne then said to Mr Blair, "Your meetings, as you said in our previous discussion, tended to be informal, ad hoc with a
small A and small H"[1]. This surprised me as I would have thought that Blair would have insisted on the 'a' and the 'h' being
capitals as then he would have 2 more targets to bomb the fuck out of.
Blair then went on to pre-suppose that even though people weren't present in some meetings that if they would have been present they
would have asked the same questions that were asked despite their absence, which to me just seems incredulous. How can you know this
for sure? Surely Blair was supposed to be giving evidence not just voicing his opinion. Unless people are present you can not know
what they would have said or asked, unless you are a phrophet and I believe I am one hundred percent accurate in stating that Tony
Blair is definately not a prophet, although he has made vast profit from his actions.
There was then a lot of talk about UN Resolutions and who did and didn't know about the impeding war. Apparantely Blair didn't tell
Bush of the legal problems of the invasion because he had misplaced his glove puppet. Then Blair went on to crack his best joke of
all when he said, "I am on the liberal interventionist side of the debate", I mean the cheek of Blair calling himself liberal!
Blair also kept referring to September 11th even though that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. So after what seemed
like the hundredth time that Blair said, "after September 11th" I visited Twitter for a bit of inspiration and read the best quote
which read, "Tony Blair: After 9/11 'The Calculous of risk had changed' into what? The abacus of atrocity?"
So basically from my reading of Blair's remarks it would seem that Blair's arguement is thus. We needed a war to find the proof that
we were wrong. But Blair still believes we did the right thing. If you think back Tony Blair was the man that wanted to push through
90-day detention without charge for terror suspects, so why doesn't someone arrest Blair as a "terror suspect" and see how he likes it?
[1] http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/50865/20110121-Blair.pdf p26 line 7
Blair, Gaddafi and the celebrity book-writing smile
Blair was the man that invited Gaddafi back to the world stage, with his celebrity book-writing smile. Mr Blair still has a
significant job, "Peace envoy to the Middle East". Why has no one asked the question: "Why do we still continue to trust Tony
Blair when it can be proven that his judgement is shot to fuck?"
How can bringing Gaddafi back to the world stage help to bring peace to the Middle East?
How does invading Iraq help with the peace in the Middle East?
How can Blair's support for Israel help bring peace to the Middle East?
Blair is a warmonger (if a fishmonger sells fish...) and in my opinion he is a war criminal. Yet, ironically he holds the the title of Peace Envoy to the Middle
East and no questions are asked. How can this be? At first I thought it must have been a joke but Blair has been in this position for
over 3 years now.
Queen hates Blair?
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has not been invited to the royal wedding. Since stepping down from his role as Prime Minister, Mr
Blair has displayed an insatiable appetite for amassing personal wealth off the back of his public office. The official reason given
by royal spin doctors is that as Tony Blair is not a Knight of the Garter, he is not invited. Former Prime Ministers John Major and
Margaret Thatcher have been invited as Knights of the Garter, although Lady Thatcher will not be attending due to ill health. Is this the first
sign that maybe it's not just the public that Blair has pissed off, maybe that list also includes the Queen!
|
|
