'No payment to Blair'

[mrtoad]

If a person believes what a PT member (or their patron saint) says, then you might believe that I wrote the Bible and extended my life 2000 years to do the necessary fact-checking. Next thing we'll be asked to believe is Chalerm's pink Bently was brought in to Thailand perfectly legally, with all taxes and duties paid.

This is nearly as upsetting as hearing that Father Christmas doesn't exist.

[Noistar]

Funny how there is an 'unnamed spokesman', why is that then? The reason why is that somebody is lying. Well, if you can lie about WMD's what's a few hundred grand here and there?

Assuming the mods are happy to let any post which includes Mr Blair, turn into a 'Blair is a war criminal', perhaps we can consider your obsession.

Did Mr Blair KNOW there were no WMD in Iraq?

I was always taught you can't prove a negative. You can prove you've found something, or prove you haven't found something.

Not finding something doesn't prove it's not there.

Fair point. However the 45 minute claim in the speech prior to the vote for war has been proved to be untruthful. Even by His Royal Tonyness himself at the Hutton inquiry.

He said he didn't know it was conventional weapons and thought it was chemical weapons. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.

not sure where this topic meanders to, as it becomes a general 'lets knife Mr Blair'.

Just to clarify, are you saying that Chemical Weapons are not WMD?

Assuming Chemical Weapons are WMD, which by definition they must be, any reference to not being Conventional Weapons would in fact be accurate

[delh]

Funny how there is an 'unnamed spokesman', why is that then? The reason why is that somebody is lying. Well, if you can lie about WMD's what's a few hundred grand here and there?

Assuming the mods are happy to let any post which includes Mr Blair, turn into a 'Blair is a war criminal', perhaps we can consider your obsession.

Did Mr Blair KNOW there were no WMD in Iraq?

I was always taught you can't prove a negative. You can prove you've found something, or prove you haven't found something.

Not finding something doesn't prove it's not there.

Fair point. However the 45 minute claim in the speech prior to the vote for war has been proved to be untruthful. Even by His Royal Tonyness himself at the Hutton inquiry.

He said he didn't know it was conventional weapons and thought it was chemical weapons. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.

not sure where this topic meanders to, as it becomes a general 'lets knife Mr Blair'.

Just to clarify, are you saying that Chemical Weapons are not WMD?

Assuming Chemical Weapons are WMD, which by definition they must be, any reference to not being Conventional Weapons would in fact be accurate

I am stating that at the Hutton inquiry Mr Blair admitted making an error. Rather a different comment than when he announced to parliament immediately prior to the

vote for war, that chemical weapons could be deployed in 45 minutes. I read Chemical weapons as WMD. At the Hutton inquiry, Blair admitted that conventional, and not Chemical

weapons, could be deployed in 45 mins.

I'm not a weapons expert and have no aides to support my comments. Unlike Mr Blair, who, when making the speech to Parliament, needed a majority before he could authorise.

Regarding the 'knife Blair' comment, just maybe others see through his ways. Maybe thats why lots have tried to make a public arrest when Blair has tried to make a speech, on grounds

of being a war criminal.

Edited August 20, 2013 by delh

[Noistar]

Assuming the mods are happy to let any post which includes Mr Blair, turn into a 'Blair is a war criminal', perhaps we can consider your obsession.

Did Mr Blair KNOW there were no WMD in Iraq?

I was always taught you can't prove a negative. You can prove you've found something, or prove you haven't found something.

Not finding something doesn't prove it's not there.

Fair point. However the 45 minute claim in the speech prior to the vote for war has been proved to be untruthful. Even by His Royal Tonyness himself at the Hutton inquiry.

He said he didn't know it was conventional weapons and thought it was chemical weapons. The man couldn't lie straight in bed.

not sure where this topic meanders to, as it becomes a general 'lets knife Mr Blair'.

Just to clarify, are you saying that Chemical Weapons are not WMD?

Assuming Chemical Weapons are WMD, which by definition they must be, any reference to not being Conventional Weapons would in fact be accurate

I am stating that at the Hutton inquiry Mr Blair admitted making an error. Rather a different comment than when he announced to parliament immediately prior to the

vote for war, that chemical weapons could be deployed in 45 minutes. I read Chemical weapons as WMD. At the Hutton inquiry, Blair admitted that conventional, and not Chemical

weapons, could be deployed in 45 mins.

I'm not a weapons expert and have no aides to support my comments. Unlike Mr Blair, who, when making the speech to Parliament, needed a majority before he could authorise.

Regarding the 'knife Blair' comment, just maybe others see through his ways. Maybe thats why lots have tried to make a public arrest when Blair has tried to make a speech, on grounds

of being a war criminal.

Good points, especially the acknowledgement that politicians ought to know their facts, due to their entourage of experts.

I was going to say 'leave war criminal accusations to the Hague', but reading up on it, it seems that even they are having difficulty defining a 'war criminal'. At least in the first world we have the freedom to publicly express opinions about our national leaders. Not sure LOS would be as accommodating.

Back on topic, the only thing we KNOW is that we don't know if he's being paid, in any form. If organizations are stupid enough to pay him lots of money, presumably, like footballer salaries, they feel they will get a return.

Wonder why KT isn't on the lucrative international speech-making circuit. I assume like most living creatures in the world, his English is better than his sister's.

I'm glad I met Mr Blair just before he was elected, at a small gathering in Uckfield. Cost me nothing to get in. I still have the handshake. I was going to put it on eBay, but changed my mind as I thought it might not go to a good home.