“The result will not to encourage openness on Iranian nuclear plans.”

While I dread the prospect of a war with Iran you should remember that “openness” is merely a precondition to “not building a sodding great nuke” – an action they are required to avoid as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That Iran is transparently doing the “building a sodding great nuke” bit makes the goal of “openness” somewhat pointless at this stage.

“It will inflame their anger and encourage them to ban IAEA inspectors from their country in the same way hay are banned in Israel.”

This would be the Israel that along with India and Pakistan didn’t sign up to the NNPT and therefore have every right to do what the hell they want in this area? (However much anyone might wish it otherwise).

This article seems to me to be almost entirely incoherent. If the writer means Israel (which is not in the West, in case he hadn’t noticed) should not attack Iran, well say so. Of course we don’t even know if Iran has been attacked by Israel yet, it’s not impossible, but there is’t too much that the government can do about it while we are all in the dark. If you don’t think Israel is capable of performing this sort of action unilaterally and in defiance of the advice or wishes of its allies, you haven’t been paying attention.

Isn’t it strange that to kill someone is commendable, but to piss on their corpse is horrific.

The nobility of purpose of the West’s crusades for justice ends in the sordid abuse of laughing soldiers urinating on the bodies of dead warriors. Healthy brave young soldiers suffer fatal words or monstrous injuries to their bodies or mind.

This might be the slightest bit convincing if there was a shred of evidence the author ever believed in the nobility of purpose. Which exists. And which is not in any way whatsoever impeded by the fact that, allegedly, some soldiers pissed on the corpse of a dead Afghan. Healthy soldiers do suffer – not words either which are rarely fatal – but wounds. But on the other hand so do people in the London Underground. They fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here.

The duty of politicians is to avoid wars that will have no convincing purposes.

So nothing to do with Afghanistan. Which had and has a convincing purpose.

In Iraq and probably Afghanistan the immense sacrifices of blood and treasure will have lamentable outcomes. Rotten regimes will be replaced by new rotten regimes.

Dare to dream! Perhaps you can pull defeat from the jaws of victory yet.

Stupidly we do not learn from the lessons of history -including the history of the past ten years. We are blundering and stumbling into a new war in Iran. The UK are distracted and disinterested in reducing the threat of war. The Cassandras who warn of disaster are ignored or abused.

Sorry but what lessons would these be? I admit that the OP does not seem to have learnt anything from the 1970s. Cheering as the Khmer Rouge entered Phnom Penh was not a good look then and it is not a good look now. Idiocy has consequences. Not for comfortable middle aged men in nice offices, but for the people on the ground.

We are not stumbling into war with anyone. These killings have nothing to do with us at all. We are not behind them. We are not planning them. And even if we were involved, they are a substitute for war, not a cause. If whoever it is kills enough of their nuclear scientists, there will be no need to go to war.

Idiots are abused for being idiots. Especially those that egg on mass murderers. Not because they oppose a war as such.

A war between the West and Iran would have unimaginable consequences that will involve their client forces of Hamas and Hezbollah.

So basically you’re saying that you are too scared of terrorism to do what is right? That the Iranians have deterred you with the threat of a few bombs?

Our Foreign Secretary is silent on the murders.

Why not? What business is it of ours?

The result will not to encourage openness on Iranian nuclear plans. It will inflame their anger and encourage them to ban IAEA inspectors from their country in the same way hay are banned in Israel.

They are not banned in Israel. Tough. Working with Iran has not worked. If they want to try something else, so will we.

Britain must not be dragged into another avoidable war in which none of our national interests are under threat. Our brave soldiers deserve our protection from the horrors of mangled bodies and minds.

And our civilians deserve protection from being burnt to ash and distributed about the Upper Atmosphere by an Iranian bomb given to some terrorists.

Any recent news about Blair and his work as peace envoy in the Middle East?

Re: this news report from June 2007:

“Tony Blair is to become a Middle East envoy working on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6244358.stm

Aren’t terrorist atrocities de rigueur in the region – this smacks of it you can’t beat ‘em, why not join ‘em?

Is this the anti-Semite who said that a Jew could not be trusted to be our ambassador to Israel?

Why yes, I believe it is.

“Britain must not be dragged into another avoidable war in which none of our national interests are under threat.”

TBH I’d say that the prospect of a fundamentalist, anti-Western state with a history of supporting terrorism producing a nuclear bomb represents a pretty serious threat to our national interests.

Well, if Paul Flynn’s piece proves nothing else, it’s the paucity of eloquent anti-war voices in the UK as opposed to scattergun boo-hoo. Nonetheless, he’s at least edging towards a grip on reality.

I mean, really. As noted at comment 1), what we have here appears to be a nuclear-armed non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, murdering civilians and their family members with total impunity in order to prevent a nuke-free signatory to the NNPT from pursuing its legally-mandated article IV rights, under a pretext of threat that is entirely unproven, disputed and heavily politicised.

This is, of course, absolutely insane – the kind of thing that would get many states expelled from every international organisation they belong to, followed by heavy trade sanctions throttling their population half to death for a decade.

In the wider context, we’ve got an aggressive global hegemon surrounding a paranoid, backward theocracy with client states and military bases, routinely invading that theocracy’s airspace with military surveillance; funnelling cash and weapons to the theocracy’s internal terrorist organisations, and tacitly encouraging sabotage, murder and subversion within the theocracy’s borders. Basically, everything we would’ve regarded as cassus belli, in the Cold War years.

Still, let’s not forget – those Iranians, they sure are ratcheting up their belligerent rhetoric. How irresponsible of them!

To reiterate for the billionth time, Iran looks like a fucking horrible place to me. I’m fortunate that I was born in a country where individual rights are taken seriously; booze flows copiously and you can buy more or less any foodstuff deep-fried. The Iranian regime is a violent, vindictive and hateful throwback that should horrify anyone who would object to being ruled by priests.

Nonetheless, there are no Iranian armies or allies in Mexico or Canada, ready to launch assaults at short notice; there are no aircraft carriers in Puget Sound or submarines circling off the coast of Florida. Iran has no nuclear arsenal to include in its numerous threats to “take every action necessary” or to “take no option off the table” that are made weekly by senior American statesmen.

So bereft of threat are the Iranians, in fact, that the FBI are having to concoct terrorist threats of their own to pin on them, to bolster these pissweak charges of aggression.

I’d love to say that it amazes me, how anyone could look at this scenario and conclude that it’s the Iranians who are pushing towards conflict. Hell, a quick look at a map of the planet and the military disposition of its many nations would show exactly who it is that is doing the pushing here.

Sadly, it doesn’t amaze me. Some folk have been pushing exactly this kind of hilarious, militantly illogical guff for decades, so they’re unlikely to stop pushing it no matter how retarded and insane the message gets.

“Hell, a quick look at a map of the planet and the military disposition of its many nations would show exactly who it is that is doing the pushing here.”

Well, who is it then? You seem to be suggesting the USA but start off by implicating Israel. Or is this another case of ‘they are just the same thing’?

As to whether or not the Iranians are constructing a nuke, I don’t think that is really isn’t a question outside of the usual fringes. What on earth else do they need the uranium enrichment for? That must be one supersized anti-cancer facility they are dreaming up.

flyingrodent,

It is a fair point that the Iranian regime feels threatened (and note that the key thing here is the regime – you perhaps sensibly don’t ask how the Iranian people feel, but treat the government as the country).

However, I would argue that the western regimes also feel threatened by Iran – the regime of which has a history of sponsoring terrorism – and are reacting accordingly. Interesting question as to who felt threatened first mind you…

[9] “if Paul Flynn’s piece proves nothing else, it’s the paucity of eloquent anti-war voices in the UK” – red herring, anti-war sentiments are the least of our problems, and well you know it – anti-demos in the UK attracted millions of protestors, and there is little appetite for conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and certainly not Iran.

You freely admit “Iran looks like a fucking horrible place to me – The Iranian regime is a violent, vindictive and hateful throwback that should horrify anyone who would object to being ruled by priests” – now imagine these ‘violent and vindictive’ priests tooled up with nukes. I mean how does that inspire any confidence amongst the international community, why would a nation committed to non-proliferation pursue such a dangerous course of action?

Given the cultural and political mire that usually coalesces around the mullahs rights to have state of the art weaponry I feel there is little that can be done to evade the greater bloodbath that is surely coming – why I’ll bet Israel will be checking it’s nuclear warheads are still in date even as we speak?

Watchman, the regimes that feel most threatened by Iran are Eastern regimes, mainly but not limited to Pakistan, Saudi, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. Iran operates a paramilitary force in at least one of those countries and sponsors another to attack another, so the fears are not entirely unreasonable. If this attack was by Israel, it will certainly have been launched with the support and/or acquiescence of most of Iran’s neighbours, none of whom, by the way, are ‘client states’ of the ‘global hegemon’ as FR’s deleriously paranoid rhetoric would have it.

“As noted at comment 1), what we have here appears to be a nuclear-armed non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, murdering civilians and their family members with total impunity in order to prevent a nuke-free signatory to the NNPT from pursuing its legally-mandated article IV rights, under a pretext of threat that is entirely unproven, disputed and heavily politicised.”

Well we don’t know who the perpetrators are, do we?
Could they not just as easily be internal dissidents?

In the meantime I love this Israel has nuclear tech, so why shouldn’t Iran nonsense.
You know my mum when she was alive used to own a shotgun.
That doesn’t mean the psycho down the road should have one, does it?

@3: “Isn’t it strange that to kill someone is commendable, but to piss on their corpse is horrific.”

Indeed. We have that kind of ideas: war is bad, but desecration of bodies perhaps even worse, although it isn’t very logical.

Note, however, that this is not a Western peculiarity; to the contrary. It seems to be even more so in the Middle East. It may be honourable to be killed in battle, and later this can be forgotten or forgiven, because war is just a method for resolving disputes. But desecrating a body is just inexcusable.

That is why the Western militaries really have to take this seriously and get this kind of behaviour rooted out. It is simply unprofessional, bad for national interests, and humanly despicable.

Of course, you could say the same thing about burning flags. Muslims are very offended if someone mocks Mohammed in a cartoon. And then they arrange a demonstration where American and Israeli and Danish and whatever flags are burned. If news are to be believed, there must in fact be large manufacturing facilities for producing all the flags that are burned. What’s the point? Just to offend people. Certainly won’t reduce the number of insulting cartoons.

Those of us who said right from the beginning of the Iraq war that there was a plan to invade Iran as well are going to be proved right. Oh how we where laughed at when we pointd out that Cheney’s oil maps were not drawn up for nothing. First Iraq, then Iran. Of course the original idea was to launch the war into Iran from Iraq,but Bush and Blair so fucked up that war that Iran had to be put on hold.

Also you do have to laugh at those who say having Nukes acts as a deterrent. Apparently that only applies to us.

If Mr Flynn is concerned about the risk of Britain becoming embroiled in another war, he should support the targeted assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.

A bit more targeted assassination (e.g. of Saddam Hussein & leading Baathists) might have obviated the need to bomb or occupy Iraq, saving much blood and treasure.

Better one guilty scientist gets it than a thousand innocent civilians, no?

Well, who is it then? You seem to be suggesting the USA but start off by implicating Israel. Or is this another case of ‘they are just the same thing’?

When it comes to Iran, they’re getting damn close to “the same thing”. The President of the United States does regularly stress the shoulder-to-shoulder stuff diplomatic visits, and I think it’s fair to assume that all those joint military exercises aren’t sending a message to Cyprus, are they?

Yet again, you have to marvel at some folk’s ability to take a perfectly obvious and truthful proposition – “Israel and the United States are jointly pressurising Iran militarily”, for instance – and treat as if it were some deranged and highly suspect accusation. Quite what such transparently idiotic tactics are intended to achieve is a mystery to me.

you perhaps sensibly don’t ask how the Iranian people feel…

Whether I was either a glowering Mullah or a liberal democratic Iranian dissident, I’d want nukes to stave off the belligerent loonies who have spent the last decade openly and publicly debating the best way to attack my country. IIRC, the opinion polls that have come out of Iran suggest that the nuclear programme is very, very popular with Iranians across the spectrum. Are they accurate? I have no idea! Nonetheless, I’m willing to entertain the possibility that they are.

And I’ll say this bit in capital letters, so that this doesn’t slip by the slower readers here – OBVIOUSLY THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IRANIAN NUKES ARE DESIRABLE. IN FACT, THEY’RE VERY, VERY UNDESIRABLE INDEED!

I would argue that the western regimes also feel threatened by Iran

The threat Iran poses to western nations is miniscule – terrorism, rather than war – compared to what the United States alone could accomplish in the next twelve hours using only what it has in the region, if it was of a mind to do so. This is so obvious that it shouldn’t need saying, I would’ve thought.

Well we don’t know who the perpetrators are, do we?

Maybe it was elves. Or Elvis.

I love this Israel has nuclear tech, so why shouldn’t Iran nonsense

WHAT “Israel has nuclear tech, so why shouldn’t Iran nonsense”?

Ye gods. How many countries do you think we can attack “in self-defence” in one decade before people start to notice a pattern emerging? I reckon at least ten.

“Why on earth is Liberal Conspiracy giving a platform to this hypcritical racist?”

Because he’s speaking for the majority of people in this country who do not want to be dragged into a war with Iran.

“When it comes to Iran, they’re getting damn close to “the same thing”.”

And how does that Israel=USA thing work exactly (I am curious to see how far some people are willing to go with this)? Which is the tail and which is the do, or is it just a perfect parity, the ‘global hegemon’ having this one other mighty equal in the world?

“Whether I was either a glowering Mullah or a liberal democratic Iranian dissident, I’d want nukes”

Yes, we know what you would want, but what do THEY want? Because the Iranian opposition aren’t saying that they want the regime to have nukes and I can thin of one or two reasons why you might prefer your jailer not to have an even bigger gun.

Whether I was either a glowering Mullah or a liberal democratic Iranian dissident, I’d want nukes to stave off the belligerent loonies who have spent the last decade openly and publicly debating the best way to attack my country. IIRC, the opinion polls that have come out of Iran suggest that the nuclear programme is very, very popular with Iranians across the spectrum. Are they accurate? I have no idea! Nonetheless, I’m willing to entertain the possibility that they are.

flyingrodent,

You seem to have this strange idea that there is some plot against Iran, rather than against its regime and nuclear programme (I can believe the latter exists). Yet if Iran was not a theocratic dictatorship (in the sense that the dictates of the supreme leader are implemented without democratic consideration) then perhaps we would not be concerned by it. And wierdly, I believe the Iranians who took to the streets actually may know this.

As to the opinion poll thing – I doubt any polls from within Iran are reliable enough to comment upon. Not a free country remember.

For all the anti Iran pro America suck ups. Can I just point out that both Iran and Iraq were perfectly well functioning democracies. Quite liberal where woman had many freedoms. This of course changed when the Us decided that the oil in the sand belonged to them. They brought down both democracies, replacing them with unelected client thugs who carried out the Wests bidding, and leading to the mess we have today.

All done in the name of Americas interests. After Suadi , which is an American client state run by a thug monarchy which is just fine with the west Iraq, Iran are the biggest oil fields in the world. But as we all know this has nothing to do with oil…Oh no……..

So Flowerpower is pro terrorist. Because that is what he is defending. The killing of scientists for political purposes is terrorism pure and simple.

And how does that Israel=USA thing work exactly…

Well, one hands the other as many weapons systems and vehicles as it can fit within its borders, and then the two agree shared priorities on middle east policy. Some things are more important to one than to the other but for a variety of reasons, their interests overlap on certain issues. Issues such as “smashing Iran to pieces if the need arises”, for instance. Pretty straightforward and none too unusual, in military terms.

And I repeat – this endless ability to pretend that concrete facts are some wild, unfathomable conspiracism is ludicrous. Doing it once or twice is bizarre. Doing it three times or more, well, that looks like a habit.

Because the Iranian opposition aren’t saying that they want the regime to have nukes…

Not even the regime itself is saying it wants nukes. Both the regime and the opposition, however, are hardline on their desire for a civilian nuclear programme – Google “Mir Hossein Mousavi nuclear” or similar for the Green movement’s views on the matter. The Iranians are entitled to pursue this under the NPT, by the way, as is everyone else.

Nonetheless, if I was Iranian, I would probably want actual nukes to deter external attacks.

Do keep up.

Flyingrodent @ 20:

“The threat Iran poses to western nations is miniscule – terrorism, rather than war –”

And exactly how long do you think this state of affairs will last once Iran gets nuclear weapons?

@21 – Lynne

Why is it no one here seems in the least concerned when woman’s rights are trampled all over and homosexuals are put for death for a sexual preference over which they have no choice just because it happens in another country?

The likes of Polly Toynbee and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown should be truly ashamed of themselves and so should anyone who does not care about the plight of minorities irrespective of where they reside…

@27 Quite a while if North Korea is any indication.

[27] yes, it all seemed to be going so well until the first nuclear devices was actually deployed, honestly nobody could have seen it coming.

Maybe somebody can help me here?

These nuclear weapons we are going to go to war to stop Iran building- are they like weapons of mass destruction?

And could they reach Birmingham in about 10 minutes and maybe kill my gran?

And would I be right in saying that Mahmoud Ahmedinajad is a somewhat unpleasant individual?

If so, what are we waiting for?

“Well, one hands the other as many weapons systems and vehicles as it can fit within its borders, and then the two agree shared priorities on middle east policy.”

It’s a bit risky, is’t it? What if you hand over the weapons and then the other country doesn’t agree on policy? I guess that it is just really lucky that the USA and Israel happen always just to want the same things so that they become indistinguishable. I wonder how that comes about?

“Not even the regime itself is saying it wants nukes.”

So your position seems to be that the Iranian opposition SECRETLY supports a nuclear arsenal for the regime hat is murdering it in Iran? I would love to know how you know. I mean, it is not exactly intuitive, is it?

“Both the regime and the opposition, however, are hardline on their desire for a civilian nuclear programme”

And they can have tit any time they want it without any opposition. It’s pretty routine stuff so long as they don’t go about enriching their own uranium.

“Nonetheless, if I was Iranian, I would probably want actual nukes to deter external attacks.”

Yes, I am sure YOU would. After all, you are quite sure Iran will come under attack if it relinquishes its nuclear ambitions. But it would be lovely to know what actual Iranians think, wouldn’t it?

Watchman,

You seem to have this strange idea that there is some plot against Iran, rather than against its regime and nuclear programme (I can believe the latter exists).

I don’t think flyingrodent is saying there is a ‘plot’ against Iran. What he is saying is that it is hardly surprising that people in Iran might think there is a plot.

And if other countries kept saying they were going to attack us, we are hardly going to not build up our military strength, are we? It wouldn’t be at all controversial that we would take steps to defend ourselves.

Yes, you make a point about cause and effect. But why do ‘we’ keep on saying we’re going to attack them? Presumably because even though Iran hasn’t stopped its nuclear activities we think that one day they might?

From an amoral perspective, is there any point to murdering these scientists? I mean, will it hold up Iran’s nuclear production? I know their leaders aren’t the most balanced individuals but surely they haven’t concentrated all their knowledge in the heads of a few physicists? I guess the implication that might give us concern is that whoever’s killing ‘em is just testing the waters.

Another thinly veiled excuse for the jew haters to get a bit excited.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821

To most people, the Taliban are murderers of civilians. They behead women teachers and burn down schools for girls. They force children to carry bombs. they blow up mosques.

But to Paul Flynn, Labour MP, they are ‘warriors’.

“From an amoral perspective, is there any point to murdering these scientists? I mean, will it hold up Iran’s nuclear production?”

Nobody seems to have a very informed view on that, but it doesn’t strike me as implausible that expertise in this field is so rare that a closed society like Iran would struggle to replace them. What would have happened to the US space programme of Werner von Braun had copped it?

Are there no other states in the region who could have staged this except for Israel? Genuine questoin that. After all, the Saudis would certainly want to do it if they could, and most of the other regional powers too.

“But why do ‘we’ keep on saying we’re going to attack them?”

We don’t. We have said that we won’t rule out an attack, but we wouldn’t, wouldn’t we? It is only Israel, another Middle Eastern power, that has openly threatened a military attack.

@32. BenSix: “From an amoral perspective, is there any point to murdering these scientists? I mean, will it hold up Iran’s nuclear production? I know their leaders aren’t the most balanced individuals but surely they haven’t concentrated all their knowledge in the heads of a few physicists?”

The Iranian nuke builders haven’t made a warhead yet so there is a presumption that they might not know everything that is required. In which case, it would be a wise move to eliminate some of their problem solvers. Killing off a few people might also discourage scientists from participating in nuclear production.

On the other hand, if the Iranians have an existing bomb recipe from Pakistan or North Korea, it’s not going to make much difference.

[29] the distance from tehran to brum is 2810 miles – the range of an intercontinental ballistic missile is 3,500 miles.

Such weapons take less than 30 minutes to get to their target (assuming UK-Iran aggro was to ensue) – lets hope her flat is in the basement.

“Taliban hang 7-year-old boy accused of being a spy, suicide bomber kills 40 at Afghanistan wedding”

June 10, 2010

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-06-10/news/27066837_1_suicide-bomber-helmand-taliban

‘Warriors’, eh, Mr Flynn? Brave, brave soldiers, self-evidently Execution of women for adultery? Execution of homosexuals? All fair guerilla tactics, eh?

Any other people you’d like to include in the category of ‘warriors’? The SS? Ian Huntley? The Yorkshire Ripper?

And before umraged of Labour Left asks, do I support the desecration of the corpses of such ‘warriors’? …

Yes. Absolutely I do.

The Iranian nuke builders haven’t made a warhead yet so there is a presumption that they might not know everything that is required. In which case, it would be a wise move to eliminate some of their problem solvers.

Do you think their wives and children would agree with you?

Lamia,

Whether an atrocity is actually an atrocity is dependent on who committed it.

Of course, Vimothy – one man’s beheader of teachers, hanger of seven year old boys, executer of homsexuals and ‘adulterous’ women, thrower of grenades at voters, and bomber of places of worship… is a section of the left’s ‘freedom fighter’.

The right wing trolls are so ignorant of history, and the way America starts most wars. They provoke war. That is what they did in Vietnam, i raq and now Irqn. Killing Iranian scientists flying drones into Iranian air space are all acts of war. If you have any doubt see how the Americans would react if Iranians did the same to America.

America wants a war. It has done for years, and is doing everything it can to start one. Remember when the weapon inspectors were told to leave Iraq so that America could start the Iraq war. So much for trying to let then do their job.

America is the New Rome, and everybody has to bow down to the American Empire. As for all the Taliban stuff. Can I just remind you that the the Us put Bin Laden and his mates into Afghanistan to fight the Russians. America destroyed democracy in both Iran and Iraq. Woman had plenty of rights before the Americans fucked up both countries.

Still it is intersting to see all the clap trap from the tories in opposition about standing up to America was all hot air. The tories are the American stooges. Blair was just another tory.

I take it the longstding tory argument that nukes are a deterrent will no longer be trotted out. Worth remembering that the only country to use nukes in anger is the good old land of the free.

Charlie, Torquil -

Fair enough. My knowledge of the subject is roughly equivalent to my knowledge of Guyanese Creole, 18th century bathroom furnishings and the works of Simply Red.

Lamia -

And before umraged of Labour Left asks, do I support the desecration of the corpses of such ‘warriors’? …

Yes. Absolutely I do.

I’m not interested in what some ‘net-based obscurity thinks – and, yeah, lest you inquire, I’m a net-based obscurity myself – but the idea of “supporting” such an act intrigues me. What does one hope to accomplish? For the soldiers it was probably a cheap, brutish laugh – “Gold like a shower? LOLZ!” – but for you it seems to be a self-righteous thing. “Gaze at my principles while I soak this corpse in urine.” Not sure that’s a recipe for civilization.

By the way, I’ve no objection to our Foreign Secretary staying silent on the subject of Iran. Indeed, I’d have no objection if he stayed silent on the subjects of Iraq, North Korea, Israel, Bhutan, Georgia and the Antarctic. Perhaps in a saner time we’ll be able to conceive a smart plan of diplomatic interventionism but, at present, I think that the world would profit from hearing less, not more, of Britain. And, indeed, so would we.

@ 35 Lamia

“To most people, the Taliban are murderers of civilians. They behead women teachers and burn down schools for girls. They force children to carry bombs. they blow up mosques.

But to Paul Flynn, Labour MP, they are ‘warriors’.”

1) Where does he call the Taliban “warriors”? The only use of the word I can find in the OP seems to refer to some unidentified dead people.

2) Why are you so offended by the idea that someone who spends a lot of time fighting would be called a “warrior”? It would be an accurate description. Fighters don’t stop being fighter just because you hate their cause. You’re acting as if he called them “heroes”.

Let’s be honest: is this just another tenuous excuse to rant about lefties and their failings as perceived by you? Lately that seems to be the only reason for your existence.

Yes, wars, real and imagined can lead to piss and shit related activities?

At first I thought I was reading the Daily Mash and wasn’t sure whether to laugh or cry.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6212908/Terrorist-hid-explosives-in-his-bottom.html

Well, you have to laugh. Just a few months ago, we were all here saying how unacceptable it was to kidnap an armed soldier on combat duty and detain him for a period of years.

Now, suddenly, it’s all fine and dandy to murder civilians in the street, or in front of their wives or outside their children’s nurseries.

How times change. I entirely understand the principle-free, all’s fair in love and war providing it’s us doing the killing mindset. I’d just prefer to see those continually pushing it man up a little, cut the bullshit and just stick to calling people names. All these ludicrous it-isn’t-terrorism-when-we-do-it ploys are really, really dull.

Congratulations on not beheading teachers, guys! Why, being taller than a hamster really is a remarkable achievement.

@ Chaise Guevara,

“Where does he call the Taliban “warriors”? The only use of the word I can find in the OP seems to refer to some unidentified dead people.”

Paul Flynn’s own link is a video titled: “This video allegedly shows US troops urinating on bodies of Taliban fighters.”

“Why are you so offended by the idea that someone who spends a lot of time fighting would be called a “warrior”? It would be an accurate description. Fighters don’t stop being fighter just because you hate their cause.”

‘Fighting’ women teachers by beheading them? ‘Fighting’ ‘imperialism’ by burnign down girls’ schools? ‘Fighting’ voters by throwing grenades at them? ‘Fighting’ homosexuals by executing them? ‘Fighting’ seven year old boys by hanging them as spies? ‘Fighting’ enemy soldiers by attaching explosives to young children?

You have a strange idea of what constitutes ‘Fighting’ and behaving like a soldier, let alone a ‘warrior’, which is a term of valorisation.

“Let’s be honest: is this just another tenuous excuse to rant about lefties and their failings as perceived by you?”

I referred to ‘a section of the left’ which characterises the Taliban as freedom fighters. They exist. I didn’t say they were representative of the whole left, but if you want to treat them as such, that’s up to you.

@ BenSix

“For the soldiers it was probably a cheap, brutish laugh – “Gold like a shower? LOLZ!” – but for you it seems to be a self-righteous thing.”

Yes it is. I do believe in desecrating the corpses of people who execute homosexuals, throw acid in the faces of unveiled women, throw grenades at voters, hanfg seven year old boys as spies, etc. I think it’s the least that should be done to such evil animals. And I’ll live with your disapproval of my view.

To be fair, I’m with flyingrodent and sally on this – blowing people up is terrorism, and those doing it are murderers.

Which doesn’t mean the rest of their stances are not somewhat more than idiotic (and in sally’s case blindly prejudiced – to prefer Iran to the US seems to be an odd choice to me, but hey, we’re a free world (oh sorry – those of us not in Iran at least…)), but there is a principled line you should not cross. Mind you, it would also be idiotic to assume we are doing the killings (albeit it’s probably not the Americans – no-one has been caught yet…).

Yes it is. I do believe in desecrating the corpses of people who execute homosexuals, throw acid in the faces of unveiled women, throw grenades at voters, hanfg seven year old boys as spies, etc. I think it’s the least that should be done to such evil animals. And I’ll live with your disapproval of my view.

It’s an honestly held point of view I suppose, but to be honest I doubt it would do much for peace and understanding in the world.

Me, I try and be better than the murdering scum, and if that means pissing in the bushes behind the dead bodies rather than on them, I think I can manage that.

And there is a serious point here – dead humans were once alive, so if we treat them with so little respect, whatever the crimes that the organisation they fight for has committed (there is no evidence for these particular bodies, assuming they are Taliban, having previously (whilst alive) having done any of your list of evil acts), how do we be sure we are not going to treat living people in the same way.

Oh, and urinating on the dead is seriously bad manners old boy, even for a colonial.

@ Lamia

If soldiers from a foreign power, with much superior military hardware, were to invade my country would I be justified in fighting against them?

In such circumstances would I be a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

Take the blinkers off.

Pagar @ 41:

“Do you think their wives and children would agree with you?”

Probably not, but if Iran launches a nuclear attack (whether directly, or — more likely — by giving dirty bombs to terrorists), there will be far more widows and orphans than if we assassinate a few individual scientists.

[50] “I entirely understand the principle-free, all’s fair in love and war providing it’s us doing the killing mindset” – point of order FR.

The easy bit is saying killing is bad and that all manner of disgusting things happen once the lid is taken off those constraints which normally inhibit antisocial social behaviour (see recent riots for a mini-example of this sort of phenomena).

There are many who would not loose a minutes sleep if the words Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan were never heard again but the situation with Israel and the intoxicating pull of oil, gas and poppy plants still exert a siren effect on the powers that be in the USA and Europe – and even if it wasn’t this part of the world it would be somewhere else perhaps with equally dubious arguments driving the dispute.

I’m not saying it’s wrong to judge a conflict from an olympian perspective but whether we like it or not we cannot escape the reality that self-interest is an important variable in the way different protagonists conduct themselves, not to mention the obvious fact that we are seldom free from such killing before the next one gathers momentum.

Of course nations could all put their differences aside and begin to share the world’s resources more equally – I just wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Why would Iran launch a nuclear attack?

@ pagar,

How could you consider them ‘freedom fighters’ when much of their organisation’s acitivities consisted of torturing, murdering and intimidating unarmed civilians from your own country, including the weakest in society, burning down schools, waging war on religious minorities, attacking congregations at places of worship? (Presumably you can cite instances of the French Resistance andf other freedom fighter organisations carrying out such acts? No?)

Ah yes, you can consider them ‘freedom fighters’ either by:

1. actually approving of such acts as part of some noble tactic to ‘free’ their country.

or by

2. putting blinkers on regarding such activities.

Whose and which freedoms have they been fighting for, pagar. The freedom of women, children, gay people, schoolchildren? Religious freedom? No, they have specifically and viciously time and again attacked all of those.

You may as well characterise the SS in the last stages of WW2 as ‘freedom fighters’ for Germany. After all, their country was eventually invaded by people they started a war against.

The only ‘freedom’ they and evidently you are interested in is the freedom of violent bearded bigots to oppress and murder all around them, including their fellow citizens, and the ‘freedom’ not to have any comeback when they operate as a base for a mass-murder attack on another country, as they did on 9/11 and to paint themselves as the victims in all this.

Nice definition of ‘freedom’. Scrap that: obscene, contemptible and dishonest defnition of ‘freedom’.

Lamia -

I do believe in desecrating the corpses of people who execute homosexuals, throw acid in the faces of unveiled women, throw grenades at voters, hanfg seven year old boys as spies, etc. I think it’s the least that should be done to such evil animals.

Fascinating. Obviously, I agree with Watchman but I can’t think what you hope such a grim little ceremony might accomplish. They’re dead, for heaven’s sake.

I think it’s the least that should be done to such evil animals.

I object to the dehumanisation of ideological fanatics. Not because of any sympathy for the deranged people but because it elides the very human susceptibility to ideological fanaticism.

You have a strange idea of what constitutes ‘Fighting’ and behaving like a soldier, let alone a ‘warrior’, which is a term of valorisation.

It can imply that the “warrior” or “warriors” in question are particularly brave one but it can just be a reference to someone who’s engaged in war. It depends on the context. I think I remember Tolkein passing reference to “Orc warriors” but I don’t think they were the objects of his praise.

You seem to think that people here are unaware of or somehow ignoring the atrocities of the Taliban. I’m not. I doubt that anybody is. The fact is, though, that their primary goal is clearly to fight. Unless you think we’re fetishists of conflict – which would be amusing as I thought critics of the fighting in Afghanistan were generally stereotyped as bright-eyed, peace-lovin’ hippies – that doesn’t confer the slightest honour on them. I watched World At War yesterday, and when Olivier referred to “German soldiers”, not “Jew-hating fascist bastards”, I doubt he’d forgotten or was excusing the Holocaust.

Googling Mr Flynn’s name about with “Taliban” brings up a reference to their “mediaeval cruelty”. He might subscribe to all manner of nasty or foolish views but, in their end, I don’t think he’s a fan of their’s.

Correction: I meant ‘from their own country’, not ‘from your own country’.

@ 51 Lamia

“Paul Flynn’s own link is a video titled: “This video allegedly shows US troops urinating on bodies of Taliban fighters.””

Fair enough, although I notice you’ve accepted “Taliban” but not “fighters”.

“‘Fighting’ women teachers by beheading them? ‘Fighting’ ‘imperialism’ by burnign down girls’ schools? ‘Fighting’ voters by throwing grenades at them? ‘Fighting’ homosexuals by executing them? ‘Fighting’ seven year old boys by hanging them as spies? ‘Fighting’ enemy soldiers by attaching explosives to young children?

You have a strange idea of what constitutes ‘Fighting’ and behaving like a soldier, let alone a ‘warrior’, which is a term of valorisation.”

No, you’ve just listed a load of non-fighty things that some fighters do (although the one about attaching explosives to children is a form of fighting, albeit a bloody awful one). I could talk about the US army and say “‘Fighting’ by ironing your socks? ‘Fighting’ by having a beer when not on duty? ‘Fighting’ by marching up and down the square?” and indeed “‘Fighting’ by pissing on corpses?”

See the problem? If someone is in the habit of picking up a gun and firing it at enemy combatants, it’s hardly unreasonable to call them a fighter, warrior or whatever. Regardless of your desire to read extra meaning into the term by accusing it of “valorisation”. In the context of the OP, “warrior” does not read like a particularly complimentary term.

“I referred to ‘a section of the left’ which characterises the Taliban as freedom fighters. They exist. I didn’t say they were representative of the whole left, but if you want to treat them as such, that’s up to you.”

Yes, but it’s kinda revealing, isn’t it? This is the second thread I’ve seen recently where you’ve accused “sections of the left” of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a fairly common flaw, but you only seem interested in it when it can be pinned on leftists. And seeing as both examples relied on you straw-manning the OP, I do end up with the conclusion that you start with the conclusion “lefties are shit” and then try to work out a way to fit that into the topic at hand.

There you have it, folks – blieving that it is wrong to murder civilians in cold blood = “judging a conflict from an Olympian perspective”.

You can almost hear the echo of the coourtroom and the click-clack of the. Stenographer in this thread, can’t you? I like it best when state executions are portrayed as hard-headed practicality. It’s all so bracingly… Nurembergy.

It’s clear from the fact that the Mullahs have held power for decades that they want to keep power. Since they want to keep power, the necessity of a nuclear deterent follows pretty naturally.

But how can we sleep at night, knowing that even one person suffers under the yoke of a government that isn’t perfectly liberal and democratic–the institutional set-up bequeathed to man from on high– in all ways?

And off we go again, in search of more monsters to destroy…

Labia,

If you’re going to accuse anyone, but especially a serving MP, of glorifying the Taliban, you’re going to have to do a little better than the words “warriors” and “fighting” both of which are completely accurate characterisations of them.

You have a strange idea of what constitutes ‘Fighting’

How about you go and inform a soldier just back from a tour of Afghanistan that, according to your definition, the Taliban were emphatically not ‘Fighting’ against him. I’m sure he’d be just delighted.

I referred to ‘a section of the left’ which characterises the Taliban as freedom fighters. They exist.

Yes, they exist. But they don’t appear to have raised their heads in this thread. So I suggest you pop off back to Harry’s place, and take your urolagnic, necrophiliac fantasies with you.

@ Chaise,

“Fair enough,”

how very gracious of you.

“although I notice you’ve accepted “Taliban” but not “fighters”.”

Personally I would call them sadistic fascist scum, but the Guardian is a bit more gentle with them. Still even the Gaurdian didn’t inflate them into ‘warriors’.

“I could talk about the US army and say “‘Fighting’ by ironing your socks? ‘Fighting’ by having a beer when not on duty? ‘Fighting’ by marching up and down the square?” and indeed “‘Fighting’ by pissing on corpses?”

Yes you could, but none of those are crimes or involve violence whereas all the examples I gave do, which is actually germane when one is talking about soldiers/fighters/warriors, whereas your examples aren’t. So you are drawing a non-comparison.

“Yes, but it’s kinda revealing, isn’t it? This is the second thread I’ve seen recently where you’ve accused “sections of the left” of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a fairly common flaw, but you only seem interested in it when it can be pinned on leftists.”

Perhaps it’s ‘revealing’ to you. Maybe you should write it down in a notebook with a couple of question mark next to it and the comment ‘curious’. Perhaps you might consider that it’s all part of a plot. Just a thought.

I’m concerned about an MP describing evil sadistic murdering scum as ‘warriors’. This is a broadly leftwing site with broadly left-wing contributors. the article was on this site. There are always going to be a fair few nutters on any side of the political spectrum, but Lib Con doesn’t do itself any favours as a supposedly ‘liberal’ site by publishing articles by antisemites such as Ben White and Apul Flynn. It appears that your priorities lie more with not having anything nasty said about any part of the left. We’ll have to diverge there. I view liberalism and progressivism as something demonstrated by behaviour, not by self-badging and ‘solidarity’ at all costs. If a part of the left deserves to be criticised, it deserves to be criticised even if it annoys you personally.

“And seeing as both examples relied on you straw-manning the OP…”

I didn’t straw man the OP. Paul Flynn used the term ‘warriors’. The fact that you didn’t read with more care doesn’t entitle you to dissemble about what I have said.

I don’t know which other article you are referring to. Perhaps you can look it up in your little black book of heresy.

“Labia,”

Very funnny.

“If you’re going to accuse anyone, but especially a serving MP, of glorifying the Taliban, you’re going to have to do a little better than the words “warriors” and “fighting” both of which are completely accurate characterisations of them.”

‘Warriors’ do not behead teachers, burn down girls’s schools, hang seven year olds, throw grenades at voters, or strap bombs to children because they are too cowardly to blow themselves up. Fascist scum do.

Are the thugs of the EDL ‘warriors’ too, Larry? After all, they fight, don’t they? Was Fred West a ‘warrior’? He tortured and murdered unarmed women too, didn’t he?

Well done, you have painted yourself into a corner, you apologist twat.

@ 65

“Personally I would call them sadistic fascist scum, but the Guardian is a bit more gentle with them. Still even the Gaurdian didn’t inflate them into ‘warriors’.”

You realise it’s possble to be all of those things at once, yes? Taliban, warriors, and sadistic fascist scum? Being one thing doesn’t mean you can’t be another, which seems to be the concept that’s giving you trouble. E.G. one can be a violent fanatic and a fighter.

“Yes you could, but none of those are crimes or involve violence whereas all the examples I gave do, which is actually germane when one is talking about soldiers/fighters/warriors, whereas your examples aren’t. So you are drawing a non-comparison.”

Nope, wrong. I’m saying that listing the non-combat-activities carried out by a person does not show that they are not a fighter, especially when that person is engaged in fighting. Your argument was akin to saying “how can you say he’s an ice-cream salesman when he’s a Deep Purple fan!” You didn’t show they were non-combatants, you listed a load of details that were irrelevant to whether or not they were combatants.

Get it now? Or do I have to explain again?

“Perhaps it’s ‘revealing’ to you. Maybe you should write it down in a notebook with a couple of question mark next to it and the comment ‘curious’. Perhaps you might consider that it’s all part of a plot. Just a thought.”

Oh, yes, that’s right. Only a conspiracy theorist could possibly criticise Lamia!

“It appears that your priorities lie more with not having anything nasty said about any part of the left.”

Funny that, as I frequently criticise leftists myself. My priorities lie with not making straw-man attacks on individuals then using them to smear whole political groups. Try it sometime.

There are people who wander around this site (and others), constantly looking for an excuse to rant about their particular hated group. If they can’t find an excuse, they make one up. They are annoying. You are one of them.

“I view liberalism and progressivism as something demonstrated by behaviour, not by self-badging and ‘solidarity’ at all costs. If a part of the left deserves to be criticised, it deserves to be criticised even if it annoys you personally.”

No disagreement here, but they’ve got to *deserve* it first. There’s no law that says people should be criticised because Lamia can come up with a straw-man attack on them.

“I didn’t straw man the OP. Paul Flynn used the term ‘warriors’. The fact that you didn’t read with more care doesn’t entitle you to dissemble about what I have said. ”

Yes you did, when you implied that he used “warriors” as an approving term. Which you have in, oh, every single post thus far, I think.

“I don’t know which other article you are referring to.”

The one on immigration and unemployment. Are your angry rants so frequent that you can’t even remember where you left them?

“Perhaps you can look it up in your little black book of heresy.”

Careful! You spilled melodrama all down your shirt.

@ Lamia

“how very gracious of you.”

Missed this. I’d say being sarky and arsey when someone concedes a point puts you firmly in the “just here to be a twat” category, wouldn’t you?

As Lamia has skipped over my long – too long; damn 5-6pm apathy – I’ll save all our time and cut to the chase (no, not you, Chaise, chase) …

Warrior: (a) A person engaged in, experienced in or devoted to war.

- Collins English Dictionary, p. 1711

Now, unless Mr Flynn wants to pop up and say, “Actually, I meant that they’re jolly nice people with splendid plans for the future of Afghanistan” shall we stop throwing “apologist” claims about?

Just to remind all the pro American anti terrorists that after 9/11 the Bush administration, and continued by Obama, the American President has taken on the powers to be able to single out and kill and individual anywhere in the world. No evidence is required, no trial, no due process. Just on the Presidents orders anyone can be killed. The American govt has now taken the power to arrest and hold any US citizen, again without trial, and hold indefinitely.

Even those still held at the camp in Cuba who the American govt now admits have done nothing wrong, can not now be released, because the US congress has past a law that states that if on release they commit ant act of terror the politician who released them will be legally responsibility. In addition, any prisoner who is released and tells the media, or writes a book about it, the said politician will be held responsible. This insures that no politician will ever release any of these people.

When Bin Laden blew up the twin towers he could have not in his wildest dreams imagine how much damage the Americans would do to their reputation, and their own country on their own accord. Due process, Habeas corpus, the bill of rights , and the rule of law have all been thrown into the trash can of history. In their place the Americans have replaced them with torture, and permanent imprisonment without trial. And all in the name of freedom. We really have jumped down the rabbit hole now.

Sally,

How about the US internment of American-Japanese or the fire-bombing of Dresden during WWII?

[62] I seem to have found myself in court (or at least FR’s fantasy version) presumably for the sort of thought crime Joe Stalin tended to frown upon?

Anyway, I have looked back over my comments and can find nothing that even remotely resembles what it is I am supposed to have said.
In fact the only direct comment I made about the killing (of the 4th Iranian scientist) was that it seemed to be yet another strand in the sort of political terrorism that is depressingly commonplace in the region.

So let me spell it out for FR’s imaginary stenographer – killing, bad, being nice, good

Oh, it all seems so simple once any sort of context is removed – it’s a bit like explaining the basis of international conflict to an earnest 13 year old.
Just let’s hope there are no awkward questions about why similar patterns keep recurring time and time again.

Are the thugs of the EDL ‘warriors’ too, Larry? After all, they fight, don’t they? Was Fred West a ‘warrior’?

I dunno, Lamia, that’s a hard one. But I think on balance I’m going to say that they’re not warriors since they don’t fight in wars.

Now your turn. Were Genghis Khan’s troops ‘warriors’? Or Vlad the Impaler’s? Or Attila the Hun’s? Shall we conclude that the quarter of a million or so occurrences of e.g. “Mongol warrior” on the web are 100% supportive of the numerous atrocities Khan’s fighters carried out?

Or is it the case that you’ve burst on hear determined to unleash some rough justice against Taliban apologists, and having found no-one satsifying that description, simply decided to invent some?

Pissing on a corpse is disrespectful and regrettable; but spraying a corpse with a mild antiseptic liquid is hardly desecration, which is surely something more like Achilles’ treatment of Hector’s corpse.

Vimothy

Quote: The Allied bombing of Hamburg . . during the last week of July, 1943, Operation Gomorrah, created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force in World War II, killing 42,600 civilians and wounding 37,000 in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War_II

For comparison, the total number of British civilians killed through the war 1939-45 is put at c. 62,000, which includes the London Blitz and the raids on Coventry, as well as the V1 flying bombs and the V2 rockets on London.

I lived through the war in inner London. Close calls: in June 1944, a V1 flying bomb landed down one end of the road where I lived then and V2 rocket landed at the other in January 1945 – I found by chance the dates with the locations in a database online. The V2 rockets were not seen and only heard when they exploded on landing but the V1 flying bombs could be heard and seen on their way. The time to really start worrying was on hearing the distinctive engine sound stop.

@28

yes, it all seemed to be going so well until the first nuclear devices was actually deployed, honestly nobody could have seen it coming.

Well then a&e, you’d best start lobbying to get us to invade N Korea, because guess what, they’ve already got nukes and are at least, if not more, hatstand than Iran.
Clock’s ticking.

@59. BenSix: “Obviously, I agree with Watchman but I can’t think what you hope such a grim little ceremony might accomplish. They’re dead, for heaven’s sake.”

Such acts diminish the humanity of the perpetrator more than the deceased. I have more pity for the soldiers and wonder about what motivated them to urinate on corpses — a desire for self humiliation?

“I object to the dehumanisation of ideological fanatics. Not because of any sympathy for the deranged people but because it elides the very human susceptibility to ideological fanaticism.”

My concern for the perpetrators is similarly motivated.

One thing that does make me feel guilty is that we’ve been arguing over details for God knows how long and there’s no actual evidence – as far as I can see – that they were members of the Taliban. I mean, sure – they may have been. But who’s word are we taking? That of chaps so principled that they’ll yank down their flies and drench somebody’s corpse? I’m sceptical.

[*] whose

(Apologies for using a whole comment to correct my grammar. Here, have a cookie.)

I… wonder about what motivated them to urinate on corpses

Hard to say, but let me through this out there nonetheless: perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the corpses were once people who were trying to kill them?

[77] “Clock’s ticking” – indeed, cyclux – the clock really is ticking.

Things are bad enough without more nukes, especially in places like Iran.

If a man will stick an explosive device up his arse in order to carry out gods work what might happen if that sort of religious fanaticism comes into play amongst polarised factions with a finger quivering over the nuclear button?

What possible motivation would Iran’s rulers have for starting a war that would end with their country reduced to a glowing crater in the earth?

You can say, oh, but they’re crazy man. But it’s obvious that they’re not and that they want to keep power. Proof: they’re in power.

@41. pagar: “Do you think their wives and children would agree with you?”

For the record, I responded to an amoral question (noted by Ben Six, the questioner) with a logical, amoral answer. Assassination of scientists (more realistically, they are engineers in their role) is not my preference but I am open to argument.

Applying absolute morality (killing is always wrong) sends us up a blind alley. If a citizen is killed and it may prevent or delay the execution of an evil (in Iran’s case, illegal) objective, we have to assess whether the action is morally justified.

The killing itself is illegal, but that is one of the few things that we know. We do not know the intellectual capacity of Iran’s bomb builders, whether they are building to a recipe, nor do we know how much information about Iran’s plans is possessed by the country that organised the assassination. (I incline to the view that Iran’s plans have been well and truly leaked by horrified rationalists in that country.)

All I know is that I don’t know very much, but what I do know is very scary.

Most scary of all is for Iran to have a nuclear weapon because Iran would then become the least rationally governed country with that capacity.

It really should bother a lot more people that so much of our political and media class have spent ten years inventing contrived questions – e.g. “What if the Iranians are two days from nuking entire cities” – that serve no other purpose than convincing people to accept ever more violence, extrajudicial detention, airstrikes and state-sanctioned executions. The such questions exist only to justify that which is already the decided will of the powerful, and never to investigate or clarify.

The historical precedents aren’t pretty and the mental habits it encourages lead inexorably towards endorsing some damn ugly behaviour. See also – “It isn’t terrorism when our side intentionally murders civilians in cold blood”.

@81. vimothy: “Hard to say, but let me through this out there nonetheless: perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the corpses were once people who were trying to kill them?”

I misunderstood the purpose of armed conflict which I presumed to be settlement of power disputes by violence. Mea culpa. I now understand that warfare is conducted to provide opportunities for GIs to piss on the dead.

That’s irrelevant to the issue of why the soldiers did what they did. I expect soldiers also piss in the sand. By extension, you must think that wars are prosectued so that soldiers get the opportunity to piss in the sand.

[85] “It isn’t terrorism when our side intentionally murders civilians in cold blood” – if you know who is responsible then perhaps you could share it with us?

Did the americans, israelis, or even iran-hating taliban order the hits?
Hell it could even be the mischievous pakistanis – it’s not as if anybody needs much of an excuse before before unleashing further bouts of bloodshed in places like tehran.

@ Charlieman

All I know is that I don’t know very much, but what I do know is very scary.

OK. Well if you’re scared that certainly justifies murder, then.

Blair was allegedly scared that Saddam was dangerous. That justified the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSieUhqIR6k

Do we learn nothing………….

@77. Cylux: “Well then a&e, you’d best start lobbying to get us to invade N Korea, because guess what, they’ve already got nukes and are at least, if not more, hatstand than Iran.”

Arguing about sanity certificates for members of the Iranian and North Korean regimes might be just cause for awarding an insanity certificate to me. However the North Korean regime believes in Juche (a self reliant, powerful state — heaven in the state) whereas Iranian theocrats believe in heaven after life.

@89. pagar: “OK. Well if you’re scared that certainly justifies murder, then.

Blair was allegedly scared that Saddam was dangerous. That justified the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.”

I did not argue that assassination was justified. I made the point that the country that organised the killing *could* argue that it was morally right. After the organisers have made their case, we can judge.

To make it clear, I opposed the Iraq invasion. However I will never accept the logical leap that Tony Blair is directly responsible for the “murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent people”. Whatever mess Iraq was left in post-invasion, killings are the direct responsibility of the murderers, whether they be religious/tribal insurgents or mercenaries or soldiers.

[89] “Blair was allegedly scared that Saddam was dangerous” – FFS, for decades Saddam WAS one of the most dangerous men on the planet.

The number of Iraqis who died as a result of his insane internal policies and regional wars must have edged toward a million.

FFS, for decades Saddam WAS one of the most dangerous men on the planet.

But not to the UK.

The drumming up of war started ages ago. But we are definately edging towards it.

It is almost so similar to the build up to Iraq and it is depressing to see that some people have learnt nothing from it. The media is quite gleefully sucking this up. I mean, when The Sun is using Omid Dijali as an ‘expert’ on Iran, we do not have a media that is interested in really opposing this war.

However, despite all the propaganda slowly being built, do the public really have the stomach for it? People are sick of seeing soldiers coming home in boxes War with Iran will lead to many times more. This isn’t a two-bob army the ruling elites are thinking about taking on here.

The first comment talks about the non-prolification treaty. It is a piece of paper. Circumstances have changed. Iran are building a nuke because they are threatened. This potential war isn’t because of the bomb, the bomb is because of potential war. Iran is circled by enemies. It has a US flotilla of its coast, and Israel that is increasingly getting ready to strike.

What did we do when other states got nukes? we spoke to them, repsected them. The West has set a precedent. Theses ‘negotiations’ that the West is having with Iran now would be considerably different if they had a nuke.

This is in no way me supporting Iran, or its nuclear ambitions, but when you are surrounded by them, it is only natural to want one. Iran having a nuke is not a threat to us or Israel. It is for defence. Ahmadinijad and the elites in Iran are not quite the mad dog the media want to portray them as.

I’ll end with reminding people of recent history. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. If you blindly follow the ruling classes into this war, more fool you.

“Things are bad enough without more nukes, especially in places like Iran.

If a man will stick an explosive device up his arse in order to carry out gods work what might happen if that sort of religious fanaticism comes into play amongst polarised factions with a finger quivering over the nuclear button?”

You fucking people.

The same hypocrites who defend the right of Iranian and Pakistani immigrants in the UK to live under Sharia law and chant “death to the west” at our soldier’s funerals also feel it is your right to make vast, racist, generalizations regarding the proclivities of arabs living in foreign countries on the other side of the world. those bloody ragheads eh? if they’re gonna stick bombs up their bums we don’t want them getting nuclear weapons!

Why do you think we are a more responsible people to have our fingers on the nuclear button?

Because you’re a racist, that’s why.

I suppose it’s OK to be a racist and stereotype an entire nation based on your own ill-founded prejudices as long as it suits your political agenda.

And the half-wit who suggested that the Iranians might launch an INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE at Birmingham! haha.. we need to go to war on Iran or else Brum gets it! Comedy genius! That lady should work for the Israeli ministry of information, if such an institution exists!

Oh really, so it’s in Britain’s national interests for unstable states with a record of backing terrorist organisations to obtain nuclear capacity. Remind me, what’s your stance on Britain’s nuclear deterrent?

…

Right.

@88 – Could well be the Saudis or several other Arab middle-eastern states too, who are just as afraid of a nuclear-armed Persian state as Israel is!

@ Chaise,

“You didn’t show they were non-combatants, you listed a load of details that were irrelevant to whether or not they were combatants.”

My examples were all germane because they involve violence, and it is the perpetration of violence – not having a beer or ironing one’s socks – that centrally characterises the profession of soldier and sets it apart form almost all others. And those acts of violence have been excused by apolgist for the Taliban as acts of ‘resistance’ or retribution against ‘collaborators’ over the years. Your examples were utterly irrelevant in that they are generic and have no possible relation to violence.

“My priorities lie with not making straw-man attacks on individuals then using them to smear whole political groups.”

As I have pointed out twice now, I didn’t ‘smear a whole political group’ I referred to ‘a section of the left’. Why do you keep misrepresenting that?

“I don’t know which other article you are referring to.”

“The one on immigration and unemployment.”

I referred to “a snobbish and callous attitude on the part of some leftists and liberals”. Again, such people exist and again you are disingenuous as characterising that as a ‘smear on a whole political group’. I’m sure you understand perfectly well the difference between ‘whole’ and ‘some’, and between ‘whole’ and ‘a section of’.

“Missed this. I’d say being sarky and arsey when someone concedes a point puts you firmly in the “just here to be a twat” category, wouldn’t you?”

You mistakenly misrepresented my argument, then condescendingly said ‘fair enough’. I wouldn’t say it was much of a concession, let alone a gracious one. Hence my comment.

As for the stuff about melodrama and conspiracy theory, you were the one who found my criticisms ‘kinda revealing’ as if there were some kind of ‘gotcha’ there. Revealing of what? Does the fact that I have twice in recent threads criticised parts of the left (NB parts, not the whole as you keep falsely asserting) somehow invalidate those criticisms?

@82

If a man will stick an explosive device up his arse in order to carry out gods work what might happen if that sort of religious fanaticism comes into play amongst polarised factions with a finger quivering over the nuclear button?

Well, not that I’m questioning their fanaticism or devotion, but I can’t help but notice that Osama Bin Laden, the clerics of Iran, Abu Hamza, etc didn’t strap explosives to themselves in order to die a glorious martyrs death and gain swift entry to heaven. They did however groom naive youths and sent them off with heads full of stories to go blow themselves up in a bus or fly planes into buildings.

With that in mind, and with them knowing full well what the response to actually using a nuke would be, I cannot envisage them using nukes for anything other than what North Korea uses theirs for. So while it is undesirable for Iran to obtain Nukes, it’s not automatically panic-stations, duck-and-cover under your desk and kiss your ass goodbye time, should they actually do so.

Cylux: “Well, not that I’m questioning their fanaticism or devotion, but I can’t help but notice that Osama Bin Laden, the clerics of Iran, Abu Hamza, etc didn’t strap explosives to themselves in order to die a glorious martyrs death and gain swift entry to heaven. They did however groom naive youths and sent them off with heads full of stories to go blow themselves up in a bus or fly planes into buildings. ”

I had pretty much the same take as yours but the attempted terrorist attack in 2007 on Glasgow international airport by a qualified doctor suggests that a much wider spread of people are susceptible to indoctrination and fanaticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack

The suicide missions of Japanese kamikaze pilots in WW2 show that many more besides naive, under-achieving youth can be motivated to undertake fanatical suicidal acts. Compare also the mass suicide of the “People’s Temple” congregation at Jonestown in Guyana on 18 November 1978. We don’t really understand the social psychology of cults IMO.

It’s probably worth noting at this point that there isn’t even any solid evidence to suggest that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons. If there was, you’d have seen it; Hillary Clinton would be on TV waving it every day.

There is, on the other hand, solid evidence to suggest the US are trying to overthrow the Iranian government via economic sanctions, to whit – an Obama administration official foolishly said so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/goal-of-iran-sanctions-is-regime-collapse-us-official-says/2012/01/10/gIQA0KJsoP_story.html

Notice here that attempts to coerce regime change in other countries are every bit as stupendously illegal as murdering civilians.

“It’s probably worth noting at this point that there isn’t even any solid evidence to suggest that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons. ”

That’s right, they may just be enriching uranium for the sheer intellectual joy of it, or perhaps they have discovered a cancer patient with a tumour the size of a house. Why anyone should think that a country that is developing a secret uranium enrichment technology might be intending it for military purposes, especially a country as open and honest as Iran, is beyond me.

@99 If you think education or achievement is a shield against naivety, I suggest you take a closer look at the membership of the church of scientology.

Oh aye, I can entirely believe they’re quietly working on a full nuclear weapons programme – most likely, putting everything in place so that they could sprint towards construction at short notice, similar to the Japanese nuclear programme. As I said, I certainly would if I was Iranian.

Nonetheless, there’s still no solid evidence that says they are. It’s worth bearing this in mind, when we consider all this talk of sudden crises and tactics of last resort. After all, everything coming out of Washington and Tel Aviv is about how they’re being oh, just forced to take action regretfully, against their will, even as Israeli generals and US administrators quietly admit to the opposite situation.

Furthermore my point is that the people who would have their finger on the button wouldn’t be those willing to go out and die for their cause, but would be those who are more than willing to encourage the former to do so. The Islamists do after all have the intention of winning and ruling here on planet earth, not just getting into heaven early. So given that a nuclear strike against Israel would swiftly result in Iran being turned into glass, and thus result in complete total defeat, I really can’t see Ahmadinejad deciding to sacrifice his own life and the lives of the nation for a short lived phyrric victory. Even with his rhetoric.

[95] “Because you’re a racist, that’s why” – I cited a news report, while the theocratic regime in Iran is hardly held up as a beacon for human rights.
Please tell me if either are untrue?

Moving on …… according to some reports “Iranian police tend to respond to peaceful political demonstrations by viciously beating and arresting protesters, who are then subject to further beatings, torture, sexual assault, and denial of medical treatment in prison. Iran formally executed 94 prisoners in 2005, and many more died in prison under mysterious circumstances” – or, in FR’s words (see 9) “the Iranian regime is a violent, vindictive and hateful throwback that should horrify anyone who would object to being ruled by priests” – yet questioning Iran’s right to nuclear self determination is then characterised as nurembergesque.

By the way it makes you look like a grade A twat when you start screaming racist then characterise the israeli ministry of information in such terms, you know, jews can’t be trusted sort of stuff.

Oh, and just to be clear (since you have problems grasping even the most rudimentary facts) – I cited information about time and distance capability of certain weapons – this is not quite the same thing as saying anybody is about to launch an attack because if you can be arsed to read again my comments were aimed at a regular commentator (Pagar @ 29) who I hope understood their humerous intentions.

[101] quite, I think we should at least drop the the untenable notion that Iran is not intent on nuclear weapons capability.

Their motives for it, and indeed the the wider international communities response are the real issues here.

The undertone of the piece is that america or israel are murdering scientists to provoke war – and that the general public despite having already staged some of the largest anti-war demos in the aftermath of iraq will simply yawn and say, ‘hey-ho, in for a penny, in for a pound’.

That is clearly absolute bollocks – but if the population was so brazenly ignored last time what makes anybody think it will be any different in the case of iran.

@ 97 Lamia

“My examples were all germane because they involve violence”

…blah blah blah. Either you’re pretending not to understand my point or you’re incapable of understanding it. Whatever, there’s no point repeating myself another time.

“As I have pointed out twice now, I didn’t ‘smear a whole political group’ I referred to ‘a section of the left’. Why do you keep misrepresenting that?”

Yes, in both cases you talked about sections of the left, and yes, that’s better than saying just “the left”. However:

1) You’re talking about very broadly held flaws, mainly hypocrisy, but you insist in making that a problem with “some of the left”. Even though these issues affect people with all sorts of viewpoints, and you haven’t actually held up any specific left-wing examples.

2) On both cases, you were forced to misrepresent the position of the leftist or leftists in question to give you an excuse to do this.

Imagine someone, talking about a related story, started going on about “the criminality of some black people”. You point out that not all black people are criminals, and many non-blacks ARE criminals. They say “I know that. Did I say otherwise? No! Straw man! I just happen to be talking about crimes specifically committed by black people, both here and elsewhere”.

THEN you look more closely and realise that they had to twist or lie about the story in question just to justify putting “crimes” and “black people” in the same sentence. Would you think “Well, they never said anything directly racist, so I’m not suspicious in the slightest?” Honestly?

[It'd be nice if you'd give me a straight answer here, but given your dissembling on the "warrior" thing I'm resigned to the probability that you'd say you're talking about hypocrisy, not crime, or political groups, not racial groups, and refuse to understand the analogy again.]

“You mistakenly misrepresented my argument, then condescendingly said ‘fair enough’. I wouldn’t say it was much of a concession, let alone a gracious one. Hence my comment.”

Well, next time you present evidence showing I’ve made a mistake, I’ll just refuse to admit it. Wouldn’t want to go around “condescendingly” conceding points, after all!

Actually, no I won’t. I don’t like doing that. I’ll continue to treat subjects rationally and admit when I’m wrong, and you’ll no doubt carry on being a sarky twat about it. What fun.

“As for the stuff about melodrama and conspiracy theory, you were the one who found my criticisms ‘kinda revealing’ as if there were some kind of ‘gotcha’ there.”

1) Suspecting one everyday person of ulterior motives is not a conspiracy theory. You’re not important enough to become a one-man conspiracy theory, and nor am I or anyone else here.

2) You seriously think “kinda revealing” and “black book of heresy” are of the same cloth? “Kinda revealing” is an accurate expression of my assessment of your words. “Black book of heresy” is fucking stupid and carries all kinds of implications along the lines of zealotry and intolerance, does it not?

“Revealing of what? Does the fact that I have twice in recent threads criticised parts of the left (NB parts, not the whole as you keep falsely asserting) somehow invalidate those criticisms?”

See above.

@Cylux,

[Thomas] Schelling recounted the origin of the Red Alert scenario [novel that was the basis for Dr. Strangelove...]. George had been an RAF officer. “He was on an air base which was full of US B-47s. They were in the officer’s club. Someone had a cup of coffee which was very close to the edge of the table. The B-47 took off and roared over head, and the whole building vibrated and the coffee cup fell on the floor, and somebody said, “You know, that’s the way World War III’s going to start. … Telephone interview with Thomas Schelling, September 5, 2000.

@101 Torquil Macneil

‘That’s right, they may just be enriching uranium for the sheer intellectual joy of it,’

No, they need it at 3% for their nuclear power needs

‘…or perhaps they have discovered a cancer patient with a tumour the size of a house.’

Guess what, Iranians get cancer too. That’s why they need 20% enriched uranium for their research reactor to produce medical isotopes.

‘Why anyone should think that a country that is developing a secret uranium enrichment technology might be intending it for military purposes, especially a country as open and honest as Iran, is beyond me.’

Obviously much is beyond you, especially the unspun IAEA report which states that none of the enriched uranium has been diverted for military uses. In any case, you need uranium enriched to more than 90% to make a useable bomb. Ask the Israelis, they’ve got more than 200 of them and we know how open and honest they are about them.

92 The voice of the clown troll in all his idocy.

Please explain if Saddam was so dangerous to the world di Thatchers govt try to sell him a supergun? Why after he gassed his own people Donald Rumsfeld flew in to Iraq to shake him by the hand? And why two months before 9/11 did Colin Powell tell the a news conference in Egypt that Saddam posed no threat to his neighbors and the wider world.

The rewriting of history for Saddam by the US/UK militarily industrial complex puts any propaganda Stalin put in place to shame.

Just for the record AGAIN. 19 of the highjackers on 911 were Saudi. The Suadi regime has been one of the biggest backers of Islamist terrorism. Bin Laden was a Suadi. Yet we do nothing about that regime. So spare me your lectures on terrorism.

Sally: “Please explain if Saddam was so dangerous to the world di Thatchers govt try to sell him a supergun?”

That’s untrue. The Iraq regime bought forged parts, supposedly for a chemical works, from Sheffield Forgemasters which were really for assembly into a supergun in Iraq. Most or all of the parts were identified by the security services and seized by Customs before the parts could be shipped. By reports, Sheffield Forgemasters had already been paid for the work – in testimony to a subsequent HoC Committee hearing, the company said it had gained from welcome and free international publicity about its capacity to produce large forgings.The DTI official who had mistakenly signed off export licenses for the parts resigned.

At the time, there was increasing scepticism in the DTI about export licensing regimes to control shipments abroad of items which could have military applications.

A colleague told me that he had to routinely refuse export licenses for computer chips to Warsaw Pact countries when Soviet embassy staff could go along most high streets and buy Atari computers which had, among other chips, Motorola 68000 processors – similar to the processors used at the time by Apple computers and widely rated as superior to the Intel 8088 processors used in the increasingly ubiquitous PCs. The bought Ataris could be dismantled in the embassy and the parts securely shipped out in diplomatic bags. Potentially, this was a more deadly potential threat than forging large parts for a supergun in Iraq which could have been easily bombed had the parts been assembled. Widely available, old fashioned 8-bit Z80 processors were used in the cruise missiles deployed at the time of the first Iraq war to expel the invading Iraq army from Kuwait.

Gerald Bull, the Canadian national who had designed the supergun or weapons like it, was assassinated on 22 March 1990 when he answered the door bell to his flat in Brussels. A three-man team of assassines struck and shot him. There is no proof but this is widely believed to have been another Mossad operation.

“No, they need it at 3% for their nuclear power needs”

All the uranium they could possibly feed for power or medical reasons is available to them commercially as I am sure you know. They could buy it in France, say, from the Eurodif consortium which is part owned by, hang on … Iran! Only the consortium members aren’t allowed access to the tech, only the product, but why should that matter? Just imagine how much cheaper it s to buy in the fuel than to create an enrichment plant with all the political and diplomatic baggage that goes with it, not to mention the military threat. I wonder why they bother, I really do.

@110 – Sally

Spare everyone reading this your sanctimonious hogwash.

Your dear leader was sucking up to Gaddafi and the Saudi’s long before this coalition was in place.

Pot’s and kettles spring to mind remembering how your lot lied about WMD to support a right wing republican president called George W Bush.

The rhetoric by people like you who seem happy to allow people overseas to be brutalised is breathtaking considering the bombs dropped on Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo.

Time to face the fact the Labour Party were a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers who rewarded the bankers and punished the poor like no UK government in history.

Time to move on….

[110] “Please explain if Saddam was so dangerous to the world why did Thatcher’s govt try to sell him a supergun” – I didn’t say that, I said his regime was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands Iraqis, and responsible for god knows how many more deaths amongst Iranians and Kuwaitis (not to mention the kurds) – and when I last looked, Iran and Kuwait were still part of the world – but maybe this type of carnage is just a trivial detail to you?

So in what way is that re-writing history, because as far as I’m concerned Saddam’s body count is simply a matter of public record?
I mean do ever take more than a nano-second to digest the point a commentator is trying to make, or does the pavlovian response to stick the same record on overwhelm you every time?

@108

The B-47 took off and roared over head, and the whole building vibrated and the coffee cup fell on the floor, and somebody said, “You know, that’s the way World War III’s going to start.

Thank fuck B-47′s ain’t in use any more then.

Cylux: “Thank fuck B-47?s ain’t in use any more then.”

The technical challenges for designing and making the B-47s and the larger, later B-52 bombers to supply US military contracts provided Boeing with substantial experience which fed into that company’s subsequent design and production of a string of commercially successful civil airliners – the so-called “jumbo jets” – that were bought and operated by airline companies around the world.

This explodes the popular myth that the successes of the American economy are all due to private enterprise and free market capitalism.

116. Bob B

The technical challenges for designing and making the B-47s and the larger, later B-52 bombers to supply US military contracts provided Boeing with substantial experience which fed into that company’s subsequent design and production of a string of commercially successful civil airliners – the so-called “jumbo jets” – that were bought and operated by airline companies around the world.

That is an interesting change of topic. Interesting because it is irrelevant but shows your mind set. By all means, I am sure the work on these jets provided Boeing with a head start. But that was not enough. After all, Britain was even faster to produce the Comet. Which likewise relied on military experience – and openly military equipment like the Ghost engines which used to be called H-2 when they were used to power Britain’s jets. But even the support of government owned airlines couldn’t save the Comet. Nor could re-naming it Nimrod and pissing away a billion pounds per airplane. Britain did not manage to produce an airplane company like Boeing. So military experience is not enough. Boeing had something else, something more.

This explodes the popular myth that the successes of the American economy are all due to private enterprise and free market capitalism.

Only in the asinine sense that if someone doesn’t rely 100% on themselves, they are not an example of private enterprise and free market capitalism. But not only is this argument irrelevant to this debate (what has it got to do with dead Iranians after all?) but it is also too stupid for anyone to make. Britain failed with airliners. As it failed with most things. Most things run or controlled by the government that is. The two are probably not co-incidental.

@117. So Much For Subtlety: “Only in the asinine sense that if someone doesn’t rely 100% on themselves, they are not an example of private enterprise and free market capitalism.”

Bob provided a simple response to a simplistic argument, typically delivered by US based “libertarians”. If you handle Bob’s statement with those caveats, it isn’t an asinine comment. Both you and Bob share the view that “economics is more complicated than just one factor”. That is a truism, of course, but one that is often forgotten in debate.

Bob’s diversion about how Boeing became successful is not a complete dead end argument. Boeing became successful because the company employed thousands of well trained engineers who were able to learn their trade thanks to military spending. Iran does not have thousands of nuclear engineers of the calibre to build a nuclear warhead AND the missiles to go with it. Assassination of key weapons builders will slow them down.

113 Troll Mouse. You are not that bright are you?

Blair is no friend of mine. I opposed the war right from the start. Unlike tories who jump into line like drilled slaves, that was it for me and Blair. The man was and is a delusional fool. However let us remember that the then tory leader IDS said that we should invade Iraq even if they have no WMD.

Blair has proved that he is was a tory twat.

Iraq essentially no longer exists. It has been divided up into 3 Ethically cleansed zones. And the killing goes on and on.

@119 – Sally

Time after time on this blog you continue, almost without exception, to act in the New Labour style of smearing and telling lies in your posts – why do you think anyone would think you didn’t vote for New Labour in the last 15 years?

No one reading any of your posts believe you never voted Labour since John Smith died – it just isn’t a credible comment you make and it isn’t true Sally. We all know that so why persist in saying it?

It’s thanks to childish tribal New Labour supporters like yourself that we now have a once working class party inhabited by unelectable idiots like Ed Miliband who hasn’t worked for a single day in his life and a deputy who is a countess toff whose union dinosaur husband got through her an “all woman” shortlist into a safe Labour seat.

People of your ilk have made Labour totally unelectable and all you do with your New Labour smearing is help this coalition government. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic for real working class people in this country who need a credible political party to represent them.

Well done Sally – people like you are this current government’s greatest electoral gift.

Apart from Ed Miliband of course…

@120 – The Ministry of Truth approves of your use of “everyone”, and would like to announce your promotion to seventy-ninth in the Persuading People to Push up Daises rankings.

The BNP reprisents you just fine, you don’t need to keep trying to get Labour to follow their line. Your constant attacks on anyone to the left – saying that they must be New Labour stoogies – are pathetic.

I disagree with Sally. A lot. I think the Iraq invasion was just fine, for instance (it was the peace which was screwed up. Repeatedly). But Sally is most certainly NOT a centralist.

@121 – Leon Wolfeson

So we’re clear Leon Wolfson.

Please confirm that you never voted Labour either since the death of John Smith…

Mouse moron, you are fast becoming the stupidest troll on here, and boy the competition is tough.

How can I be a Blair stooge, when I was against most of what he stood for?Sucking up to Murdoch, starting wars for no reason,his vert weird religious claptrap. His total cowardice in the face of the Rightwing complex. His idiotic belief in letting bankers regulate themselves.

Blair did not beat the tories, he just copied them. Hence the reason he was so crap.

@122 – No can do, voted quite cheerfully for labour several times in local elections. For that matter, also voted LibDem and independent in those.

@123 – Sally

So we’re clear Sally.

Like anyone with an ounce of common sense I think Tony Blair was the most successful leader in the history of the Labour Party whether you thought he was c*^p or otherwise.

Your inflated feelings of self importance are breathtaking.

But since you feel so strongly about him and to prevent comments of hypocrisy towards you, I’m sure you’ll confirm that you never voted Labour either since the death of John Smith.

Well?

@124 – Leon Wolfeson

General Elections please Leon Wolfson – you’re answering a question no one asked…

Well?

Regarding whether Labour can believably criticise anyone for relationships to dictators:
http://naurunappula.com/z/695431
No matter if you are Silvio or Tony, Nelson or Gordon, Vladimir or Barack, left or right.

Torquil writes, ‘They could buy it in France, say, from the Eurodif consortium which is part owned by, hang on … Iran!’

Oops! Torquil ignores the fact that Iran is subject to international sanctions which prevent it from buying enriched uranium. As for Eurodif…

from

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_01-02/JANFEB-IranEnrich

The biggest hurdle to making Eurodif the prototype for a future extraterritorial Iranian enrichment facility, however, is the tangled history of Iran’s involvement with the multinational venture. In 1974, Iran’s ruler, Shah Reza Pahlavi, lent $1 billion to the French Atomic Energy Commission to build the Eurodif plant. The loan would have entitled Iran to buy 10 percent of enriched uranium produced by Eurodif. In 1977, Iran paid another $180 million for future enrichment services by Eurodif. After Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979—ironically, the year Eurodif began its operation— Tehran cancelled its agreement with Eurodif and halted its payments for enriched-uranium deliveries because Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini initially was not interested in nuclear power. Eurodif never delivered any nuclear fuel to Iran.

A bitter legal dispute followed, during which time Iran demanded repayment of its original $1 billion loan, plus interest. France argued that Iran owed it payments beyond the $180 million for enrichment services ordered by the shah but which were subsequently cancelled. The legal suit was settled only at the end of 1991. Iran was reimbursed a total of $1.6 billion for its original 1974 loan plus interest, and French firms were compensated for their losses, partly through an export insurance company. Iran remained an indirect shareholder through Sofidif, a French-Iranian consortium that has a 25 percent interest in Eurodif.

Ironically, the settlement came just as Iran had changed its position vis-à-vis Eurodif and demanded delivery of enriched uranium based on the old contract. Paris maintained that the contract had expired in 1990. By that time, Iran was already subject to Western sanctions. France refused to deliver the fuel even though Tehran still held an indirect share in Eurodif. Iran views this refusal as proof of the unreliability of outside nuclear supplies and uses the Eurodif episode to argue its case for achieving energy independence by supplying all of the elements of the nuclear fuel cycle itself.

@125 – My statement stands. You are moving the goalposts again because you once more managed to ask the wrong question (although my answer IS perfectly good enough, you’re just being a shit as usual).

And lol. You have NO idea. Hint: Labour is a relatively new party. It has a LOT of people who did a LOT more for it’s early history then Blair.

@129 – Leon Wolfeson

What does the age of a party have to do with it’s leaders success?

Are you now honestly saying that Tony Blair wasn’t their most successful leader?

Anyway a YES of NO will do – Did you ever vote for Labour in a General Election since John Smith died? Simple enough question Wolfy….

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6E8CD2XU20120113