The Trial of Tony Blair

It might have been something to do with the bottle of wine I'd drunk, but it didn't half make me laugh.

Yeah, it had it's funny moments but actually it wasn't really good comedy, mainly because they portrayed Blair as a bit stupid, when anyone who's seen him on TV is acutely aware that whatever his faults, stupidity isn't one of them. He's a highly educated, intelligent man....with some unpopular ideas. I guess letter-box gob was happy with HER portrayal though. Mainly because they used an actress whose visual persona was way beyond anything the 'real thing' could manage, even with an army of cosmetic surgeons to call on!

As Harold Pinter asked recently, "How many people do you have to kill before it becomes mass murder"

I'm fighting the urge to take you to task again, Bruce. The only thing stopping me is I know I'd be wasting my time.

Mass Murder? I would consider thinking in terms of negligent homicide. Mass murder would be a little bit of a stretch I think. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Mass murder was what Hussein indulged in when he started gassing Kurdish villages.

George, I'm quoting our greatest living playwright. It's him you need to take to task.

Where did Saddam get the gas from George?

If I buy a broom from the hardware store and use it to impale my neighbors children and then cook them over a spit using that broom stick, that doesn't make the hardware store liable for the crime. Broosh...you have your legal concepts mixed up. As a result, you dilute the true significance of what should be considered a crime. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Radio, There's a bit of a difference between selling someone a household implement and selling them a system for mass murder. But I guess it's a mistake anyone can make.

.

I would remind you Broosh, that at one point in time, sharp sticks were used to commit mass murder. The concept is no different. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Radio So let's get this straight. You believe selling a thing that people use to sweep up dust in their homes is morally equivalent to selling a genocidal system that puts its victims through a horrifically painful death? Yeah right. I kind of see where you're coming from.

No, I don't think you do see where I'm coming from. You're looking at the situation from an emotional standpoint, which is understandable. This emotional standpoint is what generates lynch-mobs. People have a right to self-defense. Selling weapons is done by every industrialized country in the world. We sell them, Great Britain sells them, France sells them, probably somewhere in Mongolia, somebody is making a weapon that will be sold to somebody. If it were illegal for one country to sell weapons to another country (and it isn't), then the only countries that would be safe would be countries that illegally bought and kept weapons. People do not have a right to kill other people illegally. The illegal and premeditated killing of another person is called murder. Selling somebody something, anything that isn't illegal to sell, which is in turn used by that person to kill somebody illegally is not a crime. The crime is when somebody decides to take other lives, by any means that isn't self defense. Household implements are commonly used to create weapons, and are commonly used to kill people. Having them and selling them is no different than anything else. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

He probably bought the gas to deal with the rats in the sewers? Seriously Bruce, Denver has a point. We sell planes, tanks and anything else we can make money out of but we're not responsible for what the customer uses the items for. We also buy stuff that has no obvious domestic use, does that make the vendor responsible for our use of them? Does the UK or any other country hold Russia responsible for every death caused by a Kalashnikov? Of course not.

I can't believe I'm hearing this. George and Radio we are talking about poison gas here. And you're telling me you have no qualms about selling this vile technology to a murderous dictator. On the one hand he's so evil that you think he should be hanged, on the other hand it was OK for the west to sell him weaponry that could put his victims through unimaginable torment. Something's not adding up here.

Again, You miss the point. We're talking legalities here. You call somebody a mass murderer. I think to be a mass murderer, one must meet certain criteria. The poison gas was sold (if my recollection is correct) in the early 1980's, to a regime that was at the time an ally of Great Britain and The US. At that time, other countries were making and selling chemical weapons as well. The international treaty to ban chemical weapons was signed and enacted in the 1990's. In the time since, the US and Russia have destroyed more chemical weapons than any other countries on the earth. So, your moral argument is moot. Now, I'm not advocating or defending the manufacture or use of chemical weapons. I'm not advocatinig nor defending the killing of anybody with those weapons. The point I'm trying to make is that this is a world full of laws, National, Local, International, blah blah blah...If you're going to accuse somebody of breaking a law, then get the facts straight. Don't just stomp your feet and yell and point fingers and make wild accusations. It dilutes the truth and makes you look like a blithering fool in the process. Not that I think you are a blithering fool, but you sure sound like one with your reasoning. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Bruce, I can't speak for Denver obviously, not that he needs anyone to speak for him. Like several others on the forum you select what you THINK people are saying in order to support your personal view. To suggest that 'I' am saying 'I have no qualms about selling this vile technology to a murderous dictator' is a little insulting. Actually 'I' am against selling catapults and plastic guns to kids, or even manufacturing them in the first place. You're twisting the fact that Hussein used materials bought when he was politically acceptable, in an unacceptable way. It's a little bit hypocritical for ANY nation to manufacture and sell stuff designed purely for the extermination of others, to become self-righteous when those materials are used in a barbaric and offensive manner. Are YOU saying that as long as 'war' materials are used against those you approve of, in a manner you approve of, they are acceptable and a fair part of our national economy? As I asked above, are you or anyone else screaming about the deaths caused by the manufacture and sale of Kalashnikovs? The reason you're not is because the deaths are not so personally offensive. International laws on acceptable behaviour in war are themselves somehow offensive. It's ridiculous to have 'rules of war'. The only important thing is to win, and the very fact that any nation starts a war in the first place proves they have a complete disregard for others anyway, and before you use that statement as a stick to beat me, Bush and Blair with, I'll remind you that the Iraq war was started by Hussein, albeit on a 'local' level, with his 'war' on his own people. Rights, human or plain legal don't really work outside of a peaceful civilised society.

These arguments remind me of those wartime movies where we see the allies throwing loads of metal strips out of planes to disrupt the enemy's radar. Both of you guys make lots of interesting, possibly valid points, but they are like those metal strips. They are trying to divert attention from a very simple point that you are unable to defend: Manufacturing poison gas and selling it to known brutal regimes is worthy of contempt. It is morally repugnant. But wait, you say, it wasn't illegal when it was done. So of course that makes it all OK. Radio you accuse me of talking like a 'blithering fool', which I shall wear like a badge of honour. You however are guilty of a more serious failing on this thread, namely of using teenager logic. How else to describe an argument that treats the selling of brooms and poison gas as moral equivalents. Mississippi you talk about Saddam using this poison gas in an "unacceptable way". Given what we have known about Saddam from day one of his regime, given that he was at war, given his track record of repression, are you seriously telling me there was ever a possibility he would use it in an acceptable way? That argument is plain disingenuous. The scumbags who sold it to him knew exactly what use it would be put to. The analogy here is with the shopkeeper who knowingly sells knives to under age customers. The shopkeeper has a moral case to answer, because the customers are of an age where they are likely to use the knives irresponsibly. Saddam was a man of a type who was likely to use the gas irresponsibly, indeed he was the type of man who had no qualms about murdering people in their thousands. And we knew that at the time of the sale. To sell him weapons of any kind is bad. To sell him this hideous technology is contemptible.

And you BRuce, are ignoring the questions I've put to you because the answers don't support your stance. Of course manufacturing and selling materials (including gas) for the sole purpose of causing death is disgraceful. Where your argument falls apart is that you focus on Bush/Blair because you despise them, but ignore the rest of the bloody world, which is doing the same damned thing. In other words you're using whatever weapons you can muster to beat those that offend you. All I'm saying is try to be even-handed. So far I've seen no evidence that you are. Your analogy concerning shopkeepers and kids is a typically sensitive issue close to the hearts of every parent, and also on our own doorsteps. You chose it because you knew it to be emotive, when in fact it bears no resemblence to international politics and their conduct. Nice try mate, but I ain't swayed.

“Nice try mate, but I ain't swayed” … Are you ever, Missi? Not wanting to put words in Brooosh’s/Bruce’s mouth, but I think a point amidst what he’s saying is that we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking legality is equated with morality. Oddly enough, there’s something of an analogy on the “Wii” thread, whereby the radio station who effectively killed a woman who took part in a water-drinking/wee-holding competition are “excused” by the fact that they apparently didn’t do anything illegal… whereas it’s blatantly obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together that to hold a competition encouraging people to drink gallons of water and hold in their wee is a stupid and potentially dangerous thing to do… Even-handedness aside (do you really expect Bruce to qualify his argument by mentioning every single similar case in the world ever?), and putting aside also the legal ramifications, from a purely moral standpoint, it can’t possibly be seen as a morally positive or even neutral thing to sell poisonous gases to such a man as Saddam… at any point in his career! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

"As I asked above, are you or anyone else screaming about the deaths caused by the manufacture and sale of Kalashnikovs?" I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who objects to the selling of poison gas but who is fully in favour of the selling of Kalashnikovs. When people accuse Blair of being a 'mass murderer', I think it's reasonable to conclude that they are not appealing to the technicalities of law, but to the moral concept of a murderer. It's churlish to them tell them to 'get their facts straight'. Indirect responsibility for unlawful killing isn't a black and white issue. That's why you're not supposed to sell knives to under-18's in this country. The idea is that if you can take 'reasonable measures' to allow dangerous weapons to fall into the wrong hands, you should. The knife rule isn't going to stop determined people getting hold of knives, and it isn't there because everyone over 18 is automatically sensible with knives - it is simply recognised that knife merchants are indirectly responsible knife culture, so if they can take reasonable measures to stop it, there a should be a law that they follow those measures. If you apply the same idea to the selling of poison gas, then clearly, it should never be sold, because the only people you would sell it to are the ones who're going to use it to kill people. I think calling Blair a mass-murderer is a too strong, and weighted with emotion, but you can't prove it's 'incorrect' by citing examples of broom-sellers. It's not a reasonable argument. Nor is accusing Broosh of being A-OK with the arms trade when it benefits him - let's assume for the moment that his position on that is not hypocritical.

"You focus on Bush/Blair because you despise them, but ignore the rest of the bloody world, which is doing the same damned thing." George There you go with another one of those metal strips. I focus on Blair because he is the Prime Minister of my country. Because the war he co-launched is in part funded by my taxes and carried out in my name. As a citizen of a democratic country I believe I have the right to do that. And because Blair was poodled into this war by Bush, I believe I have the right to focus on what Bush does as well. Who are we to lecture other countries about their wrongdoings if we can't put our own house in order first. It goes without saying that I abhor the sale of poison gas as a weapon by any country in the world. But not unreasonably my primary concern is what is done by my government, using my taxes, in my name. By the way, my shopkeeper analogy has nothing to do with parental sensitivities. It's just a great analogy that you happen not to like.

"George, I'm quoting our greatest living playwright. It's him you need to take to task." Pinter is a great playwright but given that he was a consistent apologist for Slobodan Milosevic, possibly not the guy to be taking lectures from on mass murder. On the weapons thing, I think both Broosh and the Missi/Denver tag-team are being slightly disingenuous. On the balance of probability, selling weapons to a dictatorship is considerably more likely to lead some people's violent deaths than selling a broom to a customer in a hardware store. But I think it's a bit of a leap to say that failing to prevent arms sales makes governments directly responsible for death to the extent of murder.

Bruce, you focus on Blair because you disagree with the decisions he's made. If you agreed with him you wouldn't be so engrossed in his policy 'mistakes'. I think the 'poodle' label is, and always was, absolute crap. A word that someone used and the press leapt on, followed by all the Blair opposition. Blair was never anyone's poodle. He made his decisions on the basis of intelligence at hand, (much of which was British intelligence), and the fact that he AGREED with Bush on many aspects, (though not all), doesn't make him anything except an ally. He said at yesterdays news conference that he would confront the enemies of world peace wherever they are. Bearing in mind that both he and Bush are close to the ends of their leaderships and there is very little to be gained by sucking up to anyone, I am led to believe that he said what he did because he believes it and means it. I accept you have the right to see things how you wish and to complain about the use of your taxes, but there are others who feel differently, who also pay taxes. There is no government on earth that pleases all their electorate. It wasn't a case of me not liking your analogy, but more a case of it being totally wrong and irrelevant. Oh yes, and you are still avoiding the questions I asked you. Jon, I wasn't suggesting that anti-gas people might be pro-Kalashnikov. I was simply stating that Bruce and others are (rightfully) appalled by the gassing of Kurds but don't seem quite so appalled at the sale of guns which have in fact caused infinitely more deaths. The continuing daily death roll is almost entirely Iraqis killing Iraqis, or even rmoslems killing moslems. So much for their 'peace-loving' religion! I wonder, did you watch 'Underground Mosque' on Monday evening? The function of the allies has been for the last year or so, one of peace-keeping. David, I wasn't being insincere over the arms business, just stripping away all the emotional guff and laying the 'business' bare. It would be great if there WAS no arms industry, but there is, and all 'civilised' nations take part in it.

Broosh, Lets sort the wheat from the chaff (pun intended) Moral vs Legal Accusing somebody of being a "Mass Murderer" is a legal accusation. Accusing somebody of being a "Dirty Rotten Sonofabitch" is a moral accusation. Not once have I suggested nor taken a stance that there was anything morally correct in the manufacture and selling of chemical weapons. The fact that I consider it morally repugnant doesn't change my believe that you incorrectly labeled somebody a mass murderer. Go back to my original post on this subject and see where I suggested it was more legally correct to consider "negligent homicide". I stand by my original statement and all subsequent arguments. I've presented no "little metal strips...ie...chaff) concerning my argument. I've quoted no "greatest living anythings or anyones". I did give a conceptual example of the principle of law involved, in rudimentary form (selling broom sticks which are used for murder.) Negligent homicide is essence is a pattern of behavior that indicates a gross disregard/negligence for something in ones care which results in unnecessary death. (I'm sure some lawyer will straighten me out on this one). My opinion is based on the legal accusation that somebody (Tony Blair) was a mass murderer. In my opinion, the accusation that Tony Blair is a Mass Murderer still doesn't hold a drop of water. On the issue of him being a "dirty rotten sonofabitch", I suggest it is a matter of opinion. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

There's a moral dimension to calling someone a murderer, and it was in this spirit that the accusation was made. Arguing that he cannot be a mass murderer on the basis that everything he has done is legal is tantamount to an objection over semantics. You might as well say that there it is entirely wrong to call him a 'son of a bitch' because he isn't the child of a dog.

Jack, I'll accept that argument. Legal definitions are all about "semantics" are they not? The point is, I think a seriously considered and argued legal charge of "negligent homicie" could actually be prosecuted. They got Al Capone on income tax evasion, not murder. All we have to work with are the rules. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

George I never really subscribed to the poodle label till I saw and heard the exchanges between Bush and Blair at the G8 summit last year in Russia when they didn't realise a microphone was on. Radio I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be. I'm just a humble poet opposed to war - a pentametrist for peace if you like. I tell it like I see it and the way I see it is this: 1. Blair based his case for war on lies and hype. He told lies about Iraq and its intentions with the sole aim of persuading our parliament to vote for war. 2. He rushed into war against the wishes of the vast majority of the nations of the world and before he had made proper efforts to exhaust all the possibilities for peace. 3. He sent our troops into war ill equipped 4. He attacked a country that had never attacked us and had no intention of attacking us, a country that posed no threat to the UK, neither direct nor indirect, neither immediate nor long term 5. As a consequence of all this hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died needlessly and so have 130 plus British soldiers. Many thousands of people have also been horrifically injured. As Pinter said: how many people have to die before it becomes mass murder. In my book Blair has a case to answer for mass murder and war crimes in general. Let him and all the apologists for his actions make the case for the defence. What we need is - as George Bush once famously said - an accountability moment. We haven't had that. We need him to stand up in court and explain his reprehensible actions. He needs to apologise to the British people and the Iraqi people and indeed to the world for creating, through his lies, a mess that will be with us for generations.

If you want him in court, you better get your semantics correct, otherwise it'll never happen. Seems "Massive Moron" would be more applicable to Bush and Blair. I don't know of any law that prevents a world leader from being a moron. I'm not a humble poet. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Ok Bruce, I'm not prepared to pursue this pointless disagreement any further. You believe you're right and I believe you're wrong. Let's leave it at that. I'm not humble.

And let's get back tot he point in question - was the TV programme any good? I watched it last night and I must admit that I was disappointed. It was beautifully filmed and well acted but the basic plot was just so silly that it failed to hit its mark. Tony Blair came across as a fool - and that's one thing he is not. Gordon Brown and David Cameron were ludicrous stereotypes. The programme took us up to a trial - but we didn't see it. If we had wanted either (a) a serious debate on Iraq with an imaginary Tony Blair in the dock for war crimes or (b) a rib-tickling satirical comedy on the vanity of power then we didn't get either. A good chance wasted, I suspect.

I don't know if this program has been shown over here, but I'm sure it will turn up sooner or later. That's the problem with television, it seldom give an accurate accounting and even less seldom provides any substance. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/