1 Mar 2010
Interview with Joseph Shahda
5 Mar 2010
There was no justification for the invasion of Iraq by the US, certainly not in terms of actual interests of the nation and the vast majority of its' citizens. Every dollar spent,every life lost on this idiotic endeavor has been utterly wasted.
Tony Blair is a sleazy, treasonous globalist hack, who ramped up the multiculturalizing and the surveillance state within Britain. He's truly a traitor and if the British had any courage or character remaining in them, they'd put him on trial for such, concluding in his p excrutiatingexecution.
But of course, they don't.
14 Mar 2010
I was at the Iraq Inquiry on 29th January when Mr Blair spoke.You might like to read my thoughts here:
There were NOT 400 protestors outside the hall. At my estimation no more than 200, possibly half. But they were pretty ferocious, these love and peace merchants. As for the press etc - this is accurate:
"Blair’s car slipped in the back entrance, in what the media all referred to as a “sneaky” maneuver. (Evidently Fleet Street thought it more honorable for him to be pelted with the fake blood and then lynched for real at the front doorway.)
The prospect of actually destroying Mr. Blair’s life as he knows it is not as far-fetched as it might sound. Earlier, the Inquiry heard from two senior Foreign Office lawyers, Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst. They told the Iraq inquiry the invasion was against international law and amounted to a “crime of aggression”. For his part, “Human rights lawyer” Sir Geoffrey Bindman yesterday said there was a case for taking action against Mr Blair for waging an unlawful war. He said: “I would not be surprised if a prosecution were attempted in the UK. The difficulty would be to establish his personal responsibility for specific crimes against UK law.” Sir Geoffrey added that there would be serious difficulties in making the case but these were not “insurmountable.”
All of this is to discount the legailty or otherwise of Kosovo, also undertaken without UN approval. That invasion was in "defence of Muslims by Blair and Clinton, and insurgents didn't manage to kill so many as in Iraq, so we won't mention that war, say the biased British press.
Have no doubt that these Blair destroyers DO hope to try him in a British court, since nowhere else would they look at this nonsense. Sadly, British courts are far better at defending outsiders than our own.
Mr Blair did the right thing over Iraq. It is fear of this truth dawning on people that keeps the British press terrified of being found out for the dissemblers they are. Thus "Blair must pay" gets more urgent by the day for them.
12 Aug 2013
Your article provides significant proof that Hussein at least kept the skeleton of his WMD program...and kept going...the ability to quickly add flesh to that still-potent skeleton.
But I am confident in the ability of the 20th and 21st century minds out there...to only live in the eternal NOW...and to see this WMD proof as "old news". And I'm confident that many will deny plain proof as it goes against what they want to believe.
(These people are the spiritual descendants of those who denyed the reality of mid 20th century aggressors...till the bombs blew up, the bullets killed...and they were engulfed in the flames of the reality they chose to ignore.)
I am confident that many will not believe a fact to be true...unless reported by their local news station, or hailed by their favorite comedian/satirist/commentator.
The shrunken 20th and 21st century minds...at work.