# Wall of Sound to shut Blair up Thurs 3rd April



## Badger Kitten (Apr 1, 2008)

Tony Blair is a war criminal. He lied to Parliament, the nation and the world about the presence of WMD in Iraq. His war has led to the deaths of upto a million innocent Iraqis.

But instead of standing in the dock, he will be preaching the virtues of globalisation from the pulpit of Westminster Cathedral. We need not be reminded what Blair means by globalisation, Iraq has taught us that.

On Thursday 3 April Stop the War will be protesting outside the Cathedral. We will be creating a wall of sound to drown out Blair’s hypocritical lies. It will be a cacerolazos, Latin American style!

So bring your pots and pans, musical instruments or ululating voices and let’s silence the war criminal of Westminster!

Please come at 6.30pm. Blair will speak at 7pm. Spread the
word.

WALL OF SOUND TO SILENCE BLAIR
THURSDAY 3 APRIL 6.30PM
WESTMINSTER CATHEDRAL
FRANCIS ST, LONDON SW1P 1QW
JUST SOUTH OF VICTORIA STREET
Nearest tube: Victoria Station


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 1, 2008)

How would one get an invite to hear our glorious leader speak on the benefits of catholicism and corporations?


----------



## rich! (Apr 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> How would one get an invite to hear our glorious leader speak on the benefits of catholicism and corporations?



Very close to an invocation of Godwin's Law there.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 1, 2008)

I bet he's quivering in his expensive shoes.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 1, 2008)

Refused as fuck said:


> I bet he's quivering in his expensive shoes.


I hope so


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Apr 1, 2008)

I don't know how the man has the gall...


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 1, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> Tony Blair is a war criminal. He lied to Parliament, the nation and the world about the presence of WMD in Iraq. His war has led to the deaths of upto a million innocent Iraqis.
> 
> But instead of standing in the dock, he will be preaching the virtues of globalisation from the pulpit of Westminster Cathedral. We need not be reminded what Blair means by globalisation, Iraq has taught us that.
> 
> ...



Nice one, might go along to this ...


----------



## nosos (Apr 1, 2008)

Can't make it (wish I could) but it's definitely worth while, if only because the king blues have their new sound system and they seem to love it 

http://www.myspace.com/thekingblues


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 1, 2008)

Yes... but will there be cute girls?


----------



## nosos (Apr 1, 2008)

The woman they had peddling for the sound system last time I saw them was quite hot...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 1, 2008)

How fast was she pedalling?


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2008)

its good that this is happening, shame Kissinger hasn't had the same treatment, he is just as guilty of war crimes in vietnam and cambodia.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

Yeah!

Let's not listen to anything said by anyone we don't agree with!

That'll learn 'em.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2008)

I agree let's listen to what Tony Blair has to say.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

Sorry, didn't quite catch that... speak up?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2008)

Posh people 

Did you hear that?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 2, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Posh people
> 
> Did you hear that?




Everyone, republican or otherwise, has his or her own part to play.

E2A:

Bush booed by baseball crowd: 

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/30/bush-booed-nationals/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2008)

Mr Blair too. Ta power where is you now?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Posh people
> 
> Did you hear that?


 
Only just over the sounds of the 'ululating' voices.....


----------



## jayeola (Apr 2, 2008)

Think I might go to this. /me copies onto another forum


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 2, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Mr Blair too. Ta power where is you now?



I see you at least have not forgotten Jimmy Sands.

Seriously, butchers, I don't see anything inherently contemptible in what BK is proposing.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 2, 2008)

Nor do i. I was reacting to the idiocy of kizmet that made the mass telling of someone that they've found him to be a liar eaqual to never listeninmg to any oppossing arguments. It's ridiculous i know, but that that's what he argued. The posh twat.




> Yeah!
> 
> Let's not listen to anything said by anyone we don't agree with!
> 
> That'll learn 'em.



Me, i'm fully behind this - howl the cunt down.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 2, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Nor do i. I was reacting to the idiocy of kizmet that made the mass telling of someone that they've found him to be a liar eaqual to never listeninmg to any oppossing arguments. It's ridiculous i know, but that that's what he argued. The posh twat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




<Note to self: read thread properly next time>


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2008)

and nobody ever listens to what tony blair has to say do they?? 

despite the fact that he was, like, th prime minister for ten years ...


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 2, 2008)

Well, I for one think he's doing a wonderful job sorting out the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Nor do i. I was reacting to the idiocy of kizmet that made the mass telling of someone that they've found him to be a liar eaqual to never listeninmg to any oppossing arguments. It's ridiculous i know, but that that's what he argued. The posh twat.


 
There's no argument, dude.

You wanna show someone you know they're a liar... don't listen.

You wanna make big noise to cover what they say? Then you're a twat. Posh or not.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

Ad... as if by magic.... 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=245826


----------



## co-op (Apr 2, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Yeah!
> 
> Let's not listen to anything said by anyone we don't agree with!
> 
> That'll learn 'em.



WE know what he's going to say you idiot. He's been saying it for about 15 years. 

You've got snotty and moralistic about "listening to other opinions etc" on this thread but your contribution so far has amounted to sniggering about whether there will be any "cute girls" there. I don't know how old you are, but you're coming over like a 13 year-old here.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

That's the basic idea... that way I'll fit right in.



I've not been snotty and moralistic at all. It's laughable.. so I'm laughing.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 2, 2008)

Fuck Blair and all his protectors and apologists. I would prefer a wall of bricks on Blair but sound will do.


----------



## nosos (Apr 2, 2008)

Kizmet said:
			
		

> You wanna show someone you know they're a liar... don't listen.


Why?



> You wanna make big noise to cover what they say? Then you're a twat. Posh or not.


Why?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Apr 2, 2008)

Lets hope its a lot more impressive and effective than the one yesterday in Victoria Street about coal fired power stations.  Basically it was a piss poor one man and his dog affair by a bunch of about 15 middle class sounding greens.

Didn't achieve bugger all except piss off the staff in on building who had to walk further to get to the smoking area as the staff  entrance was closed for security reasons.


----------



## winjer (Apr 2, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> On Thursday 3 April Stop the War will be protesting outside the Cathedral. We will be creating a wall of sound to drown out Blair’s hypocritical lies. It will be a cacerolazos, Latin American style!


They're now asking people to be silent for the 1st half hour, to support a vigil by Pax Christi. I expect stewards with megaphones going "Shhhhhhhh!" repeatedly.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> Why?



Because it's _absolutely_ the opposite of what they want.



> Why?



'Twat' was harsh.. just using butch's word for effect.

But in essence, mate, I got no respect for people who talk over other people.

It's the tactics of the bully. The majority. And I've no time for it. Right or wrong.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

Attica said:


> Fuck Blair and all his protectors and apologists. I would prefer a wall of bricks on Blair



Yeah! A stoning!

First they came for Blair.. I did not speak out for I was not Blair....


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

co-op said:


> WE know what he's going to say you idiot. He's been saying it for about 15 years.



What's he going to say?



> You've got snotty and moralistic about "listening to other opinions etc" on this thread but your contribution so far has amounted to sniggering about whether there will be any "cute girls" there. I don't know how old you are, but you're coming over like a 13 year-old here.



In case you missed the satire.. the 'cute girls' bit was a direct referral to the NDO politics that's only a step up from NDOFTK politics that misses the point entirely and relies, sheep-like, upon gratification as reward.

Nice Day Out.

And Nice Day Out For The Kids.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Apr 2, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> First they came for Blair.. I did not speak out for I was not Blair....



You are such a fucking joke!! Really, is it conceivable that someone can have such an arse-about-face concept of the exercise of power? 'Spose so, looking at your posts...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

Col_Buendia said:


> You are such a fucking joke!! Really, is it conceivable that someone can have such an arse-about-face concept of the exercise of power? 'Spose so, looking at your posts...



If you _read_ them rather than just looking at them maybe there'd be something interesting in your post that I could answer...

... but until then feel free to completely miss the point of a  smiley.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 2, 2008)

Oh fuck it, I feel like releasing years of pent up irritation.

When did he ever listen to me? Maybe he might if I am part of a crowd of hundreds of other noisy people.

 He wanted a 'Big Conversation'. Well, he can have it. 
He gets to ramble on, I get to have a good screech, or ululate or what have you, nobody gets hurt, point gets made . I've screeched at the telly whenever he comes on for years

 I'm in town anyway and it will be cathartic. People pay good money to go to primal screaming therapy.If anyone wants a pint first, say so. I'm going to eat with mates later so will pop in, shout  at the lying twat and push off. It's for my benefit mostly, not his that I'm going. He won't listen but I'll feel better for it.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 2, 2008)

I'd be up for a pint before hand
http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/35/359/Cardinal/Victoria


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)

Aye. Should be a nice day out.....


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 2, 2008)

Heh, I was just about to post the same link. The Cardinal, Francis St

Mappage

6pm, quick pint, howling mob, vent years of frustration, cheers, KTHXBYE?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 2, 2008)




----------



## citydreams (Apr 2, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> 6pm, quick pint, howling mob, vent years of frustration, cheers, KTHXBYE?



he's got a new book out, bless him, how does he find the time?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 2, 2008)

He just a boy who can't say no.

He got NPD IMO.

Has to suck up attention or fall in an abyss of self-hatred


----------



## citydreams (Apr 2, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> He just a boy who can't say no.



Apparently not so.  A mate who met him at a Labour conference back in the day tried to get him to buy the drinks and failed


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 2, 2008)

Sorry, should be, just a boy who can't say no to Bush, offers of attention, stages, world stages, highly-paid speaking gigs, and starting illegal wars in which hundreds of thousands die in a personal-consequence-free environment.

Can say no to buying rounds or indeed doing anything he might have to personally bear  the cost for.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2008)

Cheers  i will be coming along! yay


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 2, 2008)

\/ yay \/


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2008)

oh, i'm looking forward to this ... SCREAM THERAPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## citydreams (Apr 2, 2008)

it means I have to wash my saucepans


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 2, 2008)

Attica said:


> Fuck Blair and all his protectors and apologists. I would prefer a wall of bricks on Blair but sound will do


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 2, 2008)

citydreams said:


> it means I have to wash my saucepans



I'll bring some eggs for a nice omlette.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 2, 2008)

citydreams said:


> it means I have to wash my saucepans



Just content yourself with screaming hysterically. That's what I intend to do.

 I can ululate though, it's nice to think there is finally a use for this skill.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 2, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Yeah! A stoning!
> 
> First they came for Blair.. I did not speak out for I was not Blair....



It's not 'they' when it's us though is it?


----------



## rollinder (Apr 3, 2008)

how did it go?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2008)

its not been yet  Tomorrow


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 3, 2008)

nosos said:


> Can't make it (wish I could) but it's definitely worth while, if only because the king blues have their new sound system and they seem to love it
> 
> http://www.myspace.com/thekingblues



safe!

i'll actually go to this, FA else on and i'm meeting ppl at 7 in town so yeah.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 3, 2008)

I'll  be in the pub at 6pm, then will do vigil (or pints) then I need to skip off to have dinner with 2 other urbanites so I will make my excuses after 15 mins of screaming and leave at 7.15pm


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 3, 2008)

oh no fuck, 7 is a clash.

arsebiscuits. Would jhave liked to all the man a murderous cunt to his face but looks like i'll be doing something a bit more worthwhile


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> I'll  be in the pub at 6pm, then will do vigil (or pints) then I need to skip off to have dinner with 2 other urbanites so I will make my excuses after 15 mins of screaming and leave at 7.15pm



i just texted u ...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not 'they' when it's us though is it?



'They' always think of themselves as 'us', don't they? Once you're part of a mob it's always 'us'.. unless you happen to be amongst the targets of it.


I'm not a part of your 'us'... to me everyside of the argument is 'they'.

Fucking mobs, man. Humanity at it's lowest ebb. In theory a whole bunch of people united by the 'right' cause... in reality a whole bunch of people with nothing better to do and whole bunch of personal issues to get out and a target they can take it out on.

In that respect it's far better that you go along and dent your le creuset saucepan than stay home and hit your spouse, I guess.

The irony of Butch calling me a posh twat when selfridges will be out of replacement kitchenware by tomorrow afternoon....


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 3, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> i just texted u ...




txtd u bck


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> txtd u bck



cheers mate  Im leaving now!!  x


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Couldn't you have said that in the txt?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> in reality a whole bunch of people with nothing better to do and whole bunch of personal issues to get out and a target they can take it out on.



I've got loads better to do.  But this is where I'd rather be.  But yes, I have a personal issue with Tony Blair.  You don't I take it?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I've got loads better to do.  But this is where I'd rather be.



Did you think about the end of that paragraph when you were writing the beginning of it? 



> But yes, I have a personal issue with Tony Blair.  You don't I take it?



Of course I do.

But I'm not into pantomime booing and hissing.

And I fucking hate mobs.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 3, 2008)

I am part of the mob and I love mobs me


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Maybe that's because you have little idea of what it's like not to be?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 3, 2008)

So if you shuffle about with a placard you're ''a demo''.
If you keep still, have a vigil for peace, then peacefully protest by making a noise you are ''a mob''. I see. Bizarre distinction, but if it makes you feel better.

Perhaps we could classify them both as ''legitimate peaceful protest, usually seen as normal  part of a fully functional democracy''?

But moaning on the internet is so much more valid.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Did you think about the end of that paragraph when you were writing the beginning of it?



I've no idea. 



> But I'm not into pantomime booing and hissing.
> 
> And I fucking hate mobs.



it also seems you hate individuals that want to express their individuality.  You've been quite insulting.. i think that shows more about you than of anyone going to tell Tony Blair what they think.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Attica said:


> I am part of the mob and I love mobs me




I'm demob happy


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 3, 2008)

I've screamed at the TV in frustration when that wanker is on for years. I now have a chance to do so with other people, AND have a pint, and enjoy myself. 

He is heavily implicated in one or two things which have directly impacted on my life in a big way. He has fucked up the lives of thousands of Iraqis suffering from bombs and terrorism. This is cathartic, democratic, healthy and I want to buy Frogwoman a pint and meet her, so  all round.

I'm off to get the Victoria line and join the demo.

Bye


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I've no idea.



It shows. 



> it also seems you hate individuals that want to express their individuality.



Laughably you think being part of a mob _expresses_ your individuality.



> You've been quite insulting.. i think that shows more about you than of anyone going to tell Tony Blair what they think.



This is essentially the problem with po-faced, NDO politics types... can't handle bit of mild *piss-taking* without getting all huffy about it. Learn to laugh at yourselves a little. 

You seem to be under the illusion that what you're doing is essentially quite 'cool'.

But it's very clearly not. It's actually a bit silly. But have a great time.

I've edited BK post for the important bits...



Badger Kitten said:


> I now have a chance to do so with other people, AND have a pint, and enjoy myself.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...



We're all allowed to be a bit silly. Let's just not pretend it's anything more.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Laughably you think being part of a mob _expresses_ your individuality.



Laughably, you think you know what I think?!  






> You seem to be under the illusion that what you're doing is essentially quite 'cool'.



fuck off you twat...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 3, 2008)

( as I put my coat on) 

 of _course _it's silly. Like the Lone Mass Demos are silly ( against SOCPA) . Humour and silliness and eccentricity are some of our best weapons against war-mongering twats.

Narcissistic people can't stand being laughed at. Duh! Suck it up Blair, as we laugh and point and make a racket. It will be really annoying. Good. It's more unsettling than being all ''cool'' and angry. It's Britain at its best. I love silly demos.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

You see.. while people are there to have a great time.. all's good.

It's when people start going to express hatred and anger that I start to get nervous. For everyone's sake.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Laughably, you think you know what I think?!



Well, you wrote it. Is it not what you think?



> fuck off you twat...



Go bang your saucepan, silly boy.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

no, we should never express hatred or anger as part of a _group_. God knows what might happen.

*squeels*


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You see.. while people are there to have a great time.. all's good.
> 
> It's when people start going to express hatred and anger that I start to get nervous. For everyone's sake.



Wow, you truly are the son of god.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> ( as I put my coat on)
> 
> of _course _it's silly. Like the Lone Mass Demos are silly ( against SOCPA) . Humour and silliness and eccentricity are some of our best weapons against war-mongering twats.
> 
> Narcissistic people can't stand being laughed at. Duh! Suck it up Blair, as we laugh and point and make a racket. It will be really annoying. Good. It's more unsettling than being all ''cool'' and angry. It's Britain at its best. I love silly demos.



Best post on the thread...

.. was actually planning on going.. but just for the silliness.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, you truly are the son of god.



It's not impossible.. I don't look much like my other dad. We've always suspected the milkman.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> no, we should never express hatred or anger as part of a _group_. God knows what might happen.
> 
> *squeels*



No, mate. Google knows what _might_ happen.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Where _should_ one vent anger at a warmongering fanatacist then?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Ask me when you find one.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

ok, I found one.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

Did someone mention the  warmongering fantasists ...






			
				Jonti said:
			
		

> All we have is our voice to undo the hardy lie.
> Terror is never our choice. It's better for them to die.
> Rather than kill, should I die? If I must, is it best to do both?
> Or should we send robots that fly to waste in the name of our oath?
> ...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> ok, I found one.



Ok. Go ululate at him a bit.. and when you've calmed down come back and maybe we can talk about whether you should have been angry at all... and who precisely at.

But go have a good shout at your figurehead of hate. Or you'll be late.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

Sneery and patronising; that's hardly like the son of god, is it?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Ok. Go ululate at him a bit.. and when you've calmed down come back and maybe we can talk about whether you should have been angry at all... and who precisely at.
> 
> But go have a good shout at your figurehead of hate. Or you'll be late.



I won't be late.  I work in Westminster.  Please, elucidate.  I'd love to know who I should be angry at for ignoring public consensus on starting a war we didn't have a chance of winning.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2008)

Can't come, but I wish you all the best of voice.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

All of us, we've all failed to bring that peace to the earth!

<sniggers>


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Sneery and patronising; that's hardly like the son of god, is it?



I call it fairly good humoured piss-taking.. you call it sneery and patronising.

Methinks that's cos you has a lickle problem wiv me. 

(Now _that's_ sneery and patronising. See the difference? )


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 3, 2008)

ah, actually i coulkd sort have made it but i just discovered theres a new season of southpark i had no idea about on allsp.com and i'm watching that instead.

srsly www.allsp.com


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I'd love to know who I should be angry at for ignoring public consensus on starting a war we didn't have a chance of winning.



What constitutes winning?


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I call it fairly good humoured piss-taking.. you call it sneery and patronising.
> 
> Methinks that's cos you has a lickle problem wiv me.
> 
> (Now _that's_ sneery and patronising. See the difference? )


Yeah,  that's your reality, I'm sure 

I'm looking forward to your answer to citydreams' question.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

How detached! How bereft of understanding! How ... _smug_.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> What constitutes winning?



fuck the winning bit - he shouldn't even have started it.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> How detached! How bereft of understanding! How ... _smug_.


Are you sure your screen hasn't turned into a mirror, mr '_windy curse_'?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> fuck the winning bit - he shouldn't even have started it.



Hmm. Are you changing the question that Jonti was so looking forward to the reply to?

Only it's fairly important that I know what it is you're actually angry about.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> What constitutes winning?



you should know the answer to this if you think I'm the one in the wrong for calling Blair a murdering scumbag, and relishing the opportunity to say it as close as possible to his face.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Hmm. Are you changing the question that Jonti was so looking forward to the reply to?
> 
> Only it's fairly important that I know what it is you're actually angry about.


Light hearted humour, or yet more patronising noises?

You decide.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> you should know the answer to this if you think I'm the one in the wrong for calling Blair a murdering scumbag, and relishing the opportunity to say it as close as possible to his face.



That Blair is a murderer, warmongerer and fantasist isn't really under any question, citydreams.

The question to me.. is about why. So yes.. you need to tell me what constitutes winning before you can tell me whether we can win it or not.

My definition of' winning' this war is probably very different to yours.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Light hearted humour, or yet more patronising noises?
> 
> You decide.



Since you came on it's got decidedly less light hearted.

Co-incidence or cause?

You decide.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> That Blair is a murderer, warmongerer and fantasist isn't really under any question, citydreams.
> 
> The question to me.. is about why. So yes.. you need to tell me what constitutes winning before you can tell me whether we can win it or not.
> 
> My definition of' winning' this war is probably very different to yours.



The question to me is about 'why' also.  If you think writing a nice letter to Mr Tony B of Loaded Mansions is going to help you find out, let us know cause we all want to know 'why'.

What is you definition of winning this war?  Should it have been started by Tony Blair in your opinion?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> The question to me is about 'why' also.  If you think writing a nice letter to Mr Tony B of Loaded Mansions is going to help you find out, let us know cause we all want to know 'why'.
> 
> What is you definition of winning this war?  Should it have been started by Tony Blair in your opinion?



In my opinion Blair didn't _start_ this war. It was a war already started.

But citydreams.. the other reason I suggested you may be late and we carry this on later ...is because I've got to go get my daughter from her club now.. so I'll bbl.

Enjoy.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 3, 2008)

shit this one is BRILLIANT

http://www.allsp.com/l.php?id=e170


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> In my opinion Blair didn't _start_ this war. It was a war already started.



woah man, you're... a fucking RETARD! Like fully mentally deficient


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

... and yet _even I_ think you're an idiot.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

I thought it remarkably perceptive. I mean, you can spell and do stories and stuff, so it's easy to miss.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I thought it remarkably perceptive. I mean, you can spell and do stories and stuff, so it's easy to miss.



That's actually quite funny by your standards, jonti. 

.. and I wasn't disagreeing with him... just making the point that if I'm retarded then, comparitively, I'm surprised you can work out how to _breathe_ without pictorial instructions....


----------



## Fullyplumped (Apr 3, 2008)

Very interesting speech, partly covered on BBC News 24. There doesn't seem to be many protesters, from the TV coverage, just a bunch of people with whistles milling about outside. You can't hear any "wall of sound" getting in the way of the speech.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Apr 3, 2008)

Taxamo Welf said:


> woah man, you're... a fucking RETARD! Like fully mentally deficient


Why use language like that?  There's no call for this even if you disagree.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Fullyplumped said:


> Why use language like that?



Because he spends far too much time watching South Park.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Apr 3, 2008)

I wouldn't like to be his uncle, then.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Aye. He's fucked....


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Fullyplumped said:


> Very interesting speech...



interesting how?




			
				Tony Blair said:
			
		

> I believe, in this era of rapid globalisation, where power is shifting away from its traditional centre in the West, the world will be immeasurably poorer, more dangerous, more fragile and above all, more aimless - I mean without the necessary sense of purpose to help guide its journey - if it is without a strong spiritual dimension.



or, in shorthand, why need clause 4 when you've got god on your side?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> interesting how?
> 
> 
> 
> or, in shorthand, why need clause 4 when you've got god on your side?



I guess it would only be interesting to people who aren't going to reduce it to presumptious shorthand.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

oh, I see... so in ten years as PM what 'spritual dimension' did TB add to our lives?  er?


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2008)

To the Hague with him, and his  fellow travellers can go too!




> Very interesting speech, partly covered on BBC News 24. There doesn't seem to be many protesters, from the TV coverage, just a bunch of people with whistles milling about outside. You can't hear any "wall of sound" getting in the way of the speech.


----------



## WeirdlyGreen (Apr 3, 2008)

Does anyone out there know if there were any arrests at this noise fest?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> oh, I see... so in ten years as PM what 'spritual dimension' did TB add to our lives?  er?



Is there any doubt that he was guided by at least some form of spiritualism?

Anyway.. what's your point?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

No, the police were completely outnumbered..  which is odd, as usually there's a road full of riot vans lined up round the back of scotland yard.

Where there was hassle, the bill just shuffled people on.  Though they weren't quite sure what law it was that they were supposed to be upholding..


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Is there any doubt that he was guided by at least some form of spiritualism?
> 
> Anyway.. what's your point?



I asked a question: How was it interesting?

You then weigh in with your self-diagnostical bullshit.  Why do I need a point?


I'm still waiting for you to answer how you think this war will be won.....


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

So did you lot drown him out, then?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I asked a question: How was it interesting?



That was a silly question.. people will find different things interesting about it.



> You then weigh in with your self-diagnostical bullshit.  Why do I need a point?



A line always needs a point otherwise it just goes on forever...



> I'm still waiting for you to answer how you think this war will be won.....



Mate.. it was _your_ statement that Blair made you angry by "ignoring public consensus on starting a war we didn't have a chance of winning."

So since it's part of what makes you angry.. surely you should be the one answering that?

I don't think wars are ever really won. There are a specific set of aims drawn up beforehand.. and the best that can be achieved is to meet them.

I guess you could call that winning.. if you like reductionism.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> No, the police were completely outnumbered..  which is odd, as usually there's a road full of riot vans lined up round the back of scotland yard.



Maybe they didn't take you as seriously as you appear to have taken yourselves...?


----------



## learydeary (Apr 3, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7327623.stm

'But his speech was accompanied by a noisy anti-war protest and silent vigil by Catholic peace group Pax Christi.'

wish I new about it ealier


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

learydeary said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7327623.stm
> 
> 'But his speech was accompanied by a noisy anti-war protest and silent vigil by Catholic peace group Pax Christi.'
> 
> wish I new about it ealier



From your link, learydeary:



> He said his Faith Foundation, to be launched later this year, would bring together different faiths to promote religion as a force for good and focus on tackling the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) to eradicate hunger and poverty.



Tony Blair's Faith Foundation


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> Tony Blair's Faith Foundation



You think it's a bad idea?


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You think it's a bad idea?



I was expressing shock by use of this  ------>>> 

Do you think it's a bad idea Kizmet?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> Do you think it's a bad idea Kizmet?



No. Not on first impressions.

But there needs to be a lot more flesh on the bones in order to protect from bias and abuse...


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No. Not on first impressions.
> 
> But there needs to be a lot more flesh on the bones in order to protect from bias and abuse...



Ok then


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Maybe they didn't take you as seriously as you appear to have taken yourselves...?


You've exposed yourself today Kizmet, as an apologist for rapists, and for warmongers.

What an an inspiration you are!


----------



## stat (Apr 3, 2008)

just got back from the demo.  pretty good turnout i thought!
when i left (about 9.15), most of the demonstraters had been penned in round the back by a fresh bunch of very aggressive cops.  I saw a girl, who was clearly very passive, be thrown into a cop van and then punched, kicked and kneed by two officers.  We got the number of one but the other had taken hers off.  When i got round there again at 9.15 they were still kneeing her.  she was crying by this point, and made no attempt at resist that i saw.  very very 

'course, not as sad as the thousands of iraqis living in constant fear and suffering terrifying violence as a result of bliar's illegal war, hey


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Mate.. it was _your_ statement that Blair made you angry by "ignoring public consensus on starting a war we didn't have a chance of winning.".




No, you're questioning why, and who, I should be angry at.

Judging by your inability to do anything but sneer I suggest you go and fuck yourself.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

A nasty little fascist, wrapped in half-baked relativism and wreathed in hippy smilies.


----------



## stat (Apr 3, 2008)

ha ha, you two are like a married couple


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> You've exposed yourself today Kizmet, as an apologist for rapists, and for warmongers.
> 
> What an an inspiration you are!



That's not strictly fair tbh.

The most Kizmet's exposed himself on is in the furtherance of gathering Internet points without always looking at what lies underneath - substance.

And you ain't done so grand either today Jonti.

And probably neither have I *remembers 2x 'fuck off fash' comments from last night


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

stat said:


> just got back from the demo.  pretty good turnout i thought!
> when i left (about 9.15), most of the demonstraters had been penned in round the back by a fresh bunch of very aggressive cops.  I saw a girl, who was clearly very passive, be thrown into a cop van and then punched, kicked and kneed by two officers.  We got the number of one but the other had taken hers off.  When i got round there again at 9.15 they were still kneeing her.  she was crying by this point, and made no attempt at resist that i saw.  very very
> 
> 'course, not as sad as the thousands of iraqis living in constant fear and suffering terrifying violence as a result of bliar's illegal war, hey



Did you take a photo?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

stat said:


> just got back from the demo.  pretty good turnout i thought!
> when i left (about 9.15), most of the demonstraters had been penned in round the back by a fresh bunch of very aggressive cops.  I saw a girl, who was clearly very passive, be thrown into a cop van and then punched, kicked and kneed by two officers.



oh shit...  am sorry I left..  

were the folk at the pub still out front?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> From your link, learydeary:
> 
> 
> 
> Tony Blair's Faith Foundation



Saints preserve us. Christ almighty. Heaven forfend. And so on.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Saints preserve us. Christ almighty. Heaven forfend. And so on.





Jesus, Mary and Joseph !!!!!1


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> That's not strictly fair tbh.
> 
> The most Kizmet's exposed himself on is in the furtherance of gathering Internet points without always looking at what lies underneath - substance.


You think?

I'm doing OK, thanks.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> That's not strictly fair tbh.
> 
> The most Kizmet's exposed himself on is in the furtherance of gathering Internet points without always looking at what lies underneath - substance.



Sorry, ces. I'm not interested in Internet points. Just a bit of banter.

But thanks for pulling Jonti up on his 'apologist for rapist' comment.

That was delibereately misreading what I said and cross threading.

On this thread I am not apologising for Blair.. but just taking the piss out of what I consider to be NDO politics - anyone with half a brain can see that.

On that thread I merely commented on the bravery of another poster given how people like Jonti will always try to twist things.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> No, you're questioning why, and who, I should be angry at.



Which, you'll find, is perfectly reasonable to do on a 'discussion board'



> Judging by your inability to do anything but sneer I suggest you go and fuck yourself.



You'll get more when you deserve more.

But since you called me a twat several pages ago... I think you should really look at yourself first.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

stat said:


> ha ha, you two are like a married couple



Nah. Jonti's like a bitter mother-in-law.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> without always looking at what lies underneath - substance.



Actually I'd argue that I'm one of the few people _actually_ looking at what lies underneath.. and finding little of substance.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> But since you called me a twat several pages ago... I think you should really look at yourself first.



you really are a twat 

if there was a better name for you, trust me, I'd be calling you it.  but for the time being, while you're acting a twat, you're a twat.

ffs... how can protesting be a 'laughing' matter.   someone's been thrown in the back of a van and twatted about, and you want to question why I'm angry???!!


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Sorry, ces. I'm not interested in Internet points. Just a bit of banter.
> 
> But thanks for pulling Jonti up on his 'apologist for rapist' comment.
> 
> ...



Ah, that's just how you came across to me on this thread. I thought you were deliberately winding them up from a 'I'm so great and above it all and you're all a bit pathetic' type angle. If you didn't mean it like that, apologies.

I dunno why Jonti's going into one tbh, did you go along Jonti?

I didn't  ----->>> examines own purpose on thread <<<----- 

Anyway, I wasn't against it in principle, but I don't really normally do day-to-day demos.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

My guess: no conscience.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> you really are a twat
> 
> if there was a better name for you, trust me, I'd be calling you it.  but for the time being, while you're acting a twat, you're a twat.



Cool. So now we've established that you have a limited vocabulary...



> ffs... how can protesting be a 'laughing' matter.   someone's been thrown in the back of a van and twatted about, and you want to question why I'm angry???!!



Not quite sure what you're referring to..

But you were apparantly angry beforehand too... do you not think that might have had a bearing?


----------



## stat (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> Did you take a photo?



nope, but some ladies there did.  one women said she was from 'voices' and she was great, stopped the two police officers from trying to stop us from viewing the beating.  (most) officers' numbers noted, witnesses' emails addresses swapped, photos of the van and time noted.  fuckers.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Actually I'd argue that I'm one of the few people _actually_ looking at what lies underneath.. and finding little of substance.



You hadn't read that flipping blog though! Skimming the surface.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet, it's not crossthreading to point out you are an apologist for forced sex. And you think that's bravery, huh?

What values are these?


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Cool. So now we've established that you have a limited vocabulary...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On the girl getting a beating?

What hare-brained delusion is this?


----------



## stat (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> oh shit...  am sorry I left..
> 
> were the folk at the pub still out front?



yep


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 3, 2008)

stat said:


> nope, but some ladies there did.  one women said she was from 'voices' and she was great, stopped the two police officers from trying to stop us from viewing the beating.  (most) officers' numbers noted, witnesses' emails addresses swapped, photos of the van and time noted.  fuckers.



Mind if I quote you on my blog?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> But you were apparantly angry beforehand too... do you not think that might have had a bearing?



a bearing in what, someone getting the rough end of a stick from the bill?  when was the last time you were at a demo?


----------



## stat (Apr 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Mind if I quote you on my blog?



no, please do


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

stat said:


> yep



let me know if I can help for witnesses &c.. I'm a regular..


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

stat said:


> nope, but some ladies there did.  one women said she was from 'voices' and she was great, stopped the two police officers from trying to stop us from viewing the beating.  (most) officers' numbers noted, witnesses' emails addresses swapped, photos of the van and time noted.  fuckers.



If some of the OB didn't have numbers on (as you suggested), and you can get hold of a photo of it - post it up here.

Also (obviously) other photos of what happened.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> Ah, that's just how you came across to me on this thread. I thought you were deliberately winding them up from a 'I'm so great and above it all and you're all a bit pathetic' type angle. If you didn't mean it like that, apologies.



I was quite deliberately winding them up.. but not by any sense of superiority.

In fact.. all I've said consistantly is that I hate mobs.

However there is the danger, when someone tries to tak the piss out of the overwhelming majority that that is how some of that majority will perceive it.



> I dunno why Jonti's going into one tbh



I think it's 'cos he's got a small willy.

But I may be wrong.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> You hadn't read that flipping blog though! Skimming the surface.



I wasn't commenting on the blog though... just on that particular posters bravery.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Kizmet, it's not crossthreading to point out you are an apologist for forced sex. And you think that's bravery, huh?
> 
> What values are these?



Even when someone else points out that you are lying it doesn't stop you, does it?

Man, your jealousy and insecurity makes you a machine.

I think Belushi (or whoever) was right about you and your bruised ego.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I was quite deliberately winding them up.. but not by any sense of superiority.
> .



no, it's because you're such a funny person you thought you'd share it with us.  thanks.  really.  you've made a huge difference.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I wasn't commenting on the blog though... just on that particular posters bravery.



You couldn't really have commented on the blog, because it was quite obvious that you hadn't read it.

That poster was posting up criticisms of the reporting. Yes it was fair to laud his/her bravery doing that - but what you also said was along the lines of 'if you're going to criticise him, at least criticise him for what he's actually said'. Which would have been fair if you'd known what he'd actually bloody said.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I was quite deliberately winding them up.. but not by any sense of superiority.
> 
> In fact.. all I've said consistantly is that I hate mobs.
> 
> ...


It's pretty clear that your apolgia for evils are delivered from a position of feeling superior, from feeling that you are somehow above all that yourself. 

Once it's been pointed out, folks start to straight through your kind of fake spirituality.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

And, Kizmet, I am not lying. I have no need to do that, I know what I'm talking about.

You should remember I have documentary evidence from these boards, with thanks to laptop et al, that you, whoever you are, blatantly lie about other posters.

This probably isn't a good time to repeat the stunt.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> You couldn't really have commented on the blog, because it was quite obvious that you hadn't read it.
> 
> That poster was posting up criticisms of the reporting. Yes it was fair to laud his/her bravery doing that - but what you also said was along the lines of 'if you're going to criticise him, at least criticise him for what he's actually said'. Which would have been fair if you'd known what he'd actually bloody said.



Actually what I said was "Nail Eriksen, the cunt... but nail him for what he's actually said."

There's no mention of 'you' in that post. It was not a post referring to any individuals apart from the poster and thisislondon.

As Lemon Eddy points outs later.. it's too easy to wriggle out of things because of missed context.. which is what the original article had allowed.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> And, Kizmet, I am not lying. I have no need to do that, I know what I'm talking about.



Then please  show me how I am apologist for a rapist?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> no, it's because you're such a funny person you thought you'd share it with us.  thanks.  really.  you've made a huge difference.



I didn't think you would be quite as _precious_ about things. To her immense credit I had BK marked down as possibly one of the po-faced posters.. but she flummoxed me with her last post before she went.

Fair play to her.

Whereas you.. I seem to have got on the money.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> oh shit...  am sorry I left..
> 
> were the folk at the pub still out front?



ioh fuck  I'm sorry I left by that point ...


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I didn't think you would be quite as _precious_ about things.



Excuse me for not finding murdering innocent people funny.  Must try harder &c...


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Actually what I said was "Nail Eriksen, the cunt... but nail him for what he's actually said."
> 
> There's no mention of 'you' in that post. It was not a post referring to any individuals apart from the poster and thisislondon.
> 
> As Lemon Eddy points outs later.. it's too easy to wriggle out of things because of missed context.. which is what the original article had allowed.



But you didn't know what he'd 'actually said'. And your endorsement of that post - which frankly could have passed unmarked if you hadn't seized upon it - seemed to lend endorsement to the criticism inherent in the reporting. 

I see what you're saying. And I'm hardly someone that pulls you up/tries to give you a hard time/ultra critical of you. But your intervention (a) made it look as though you were lending credence to Eriksen being misquoted/selectively quoted (whether you intended that or not); and (b) set the thread running along the lines that the BNP want and intend ... ooooh, out of context, let's look at it closer etc etc

I don't suppose you intended any of that. But that's what you did. And that's why folks (Jonti overtly, but who's to say privately?) are pulling you up on it.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Excuse me for not finding murdering innocent people funny.  Must try harder &c...



No, no, no... my feeling is that you're trying _too hard_!


----------



## Jonti (Apr 3, 2008)

You've forgotten how to be sincere, or never knew.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No, no, no... my feeling is that you're trying _too hard_!



What could you possibly know about trying from your position of self-righteousness?   Oh, and have you written that letter to Tony B asking him "why?" yet?  No?  too busy playing with yourself are you? twat


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> You've forgotten how to be sincere, or never knew.



were you on the demo jonti?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> You've forgotten how to be sincere, or never knew.



Just back up your accusation of me being an apologist for a rapist.

No other conversation from you is necessary.. either back it up or retract it.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> What could you possibly know about trying from your position of self-righteousness?   Oh, and have you written that letter to Tony B asking him "why?" yet?  No?  too busy playing with yourself are you? twat



I know that I'm finding you trying.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I know that I'm finding you trying.



good. now we're equal.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> But you didn't know what he'd 'actually said'. And your endorsement of that post - which frankly could have passed unmarked if you hadn't seized upon it - seemed to lend endorsement to the criticism inherent in the reporting.



How do you know I didn't know what he actually said? The blog is not the only source of information about Eriksen.



> I see what you're saying. And I'm hardly someone that pulls you up/tries to give you a hard time/ultra critical of you. But your intervention (a) made it look as though you were lending credence to Eriksen being misquoted/selectively quoted (whether you intended that or not); and (b) set the thread running along the lines that the BNP want and intend ... ooooh, out of context, let's look at it closer etc etc



I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you blaming me for the misinterpretations that other people might make?



> I don't suppose you intended any of that. But that's what you did. And that's why folks (Jonti overtly, but who's to say privately?) are pulling you up on it.



I'm sorry, ces. I don't see what it is that I'm being pulled up on. Jonti has tried to twist things.. but Jonti has a small penis and an insecurity issue.. so if it's more people like him then it's probably over nothing.

You say you can see the simple meaning of the words I used.. so exactly what is it you're accusing me of doing wrong?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

citydreams said:


> good. now we're equal.



In a manner of speaking. 

But, now we've established that.. how about dealing with a few of my questions?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 3, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Just back up your accusation of me being an apologist for a rapist.
> 
> No other conversation from you is necessary.. either back it up or retract it.



It's been way over half an hour since you made this accusation.. you have been online throughout and have seen the post. I take it your non-answer is an admission that you made it all up.

I didn't really expect an apology from you.. you aren't man enough.

Incidently there is a program on Channel 5 on right now about how to improve your sex-life if you have a small appendage.. you'd be wise to check it out.

Then you wouldn't need to come and bluster on the internet to compensate.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2008)

Well the demo was pretty succesfull - a good noisy turn out with a very mixed crowd, from punks to suits. About 300 all in all. Police pressence was high at the start, but most cleared off once the religious nobs were in the cathedral. 

Supposedy Blair was making a speach about how "faith" should play a greater role in solving the world's problems. Of course the  fact that a bunch of religious leaders of all faiths came in to hear him was religious hypocricy of the heighest order - and a few old nuns deserved getting a bit spooked. Mandelson got a warm reception too 

Unfortunately no one saw Blair. A small group waited for him to leave around the back, but unfortunately got trapped in by the police - last time I checked in by phone they were still there at 10pm - not good. A solution to this police cordon trap really needs to be found, or at least planned for. STWC stewards left the group behind and barely noticed that they were trapped back there.

As I said earlier this was all 5 years too late, and as Afghanistan is now probably a more pressing issue for British activists, Id rather hassle Brown than Blair (though I did get some small satisfaction from this) - lets hope STWC, who whether we like it or not do hold the reigns of the popular peace movement, call more actions like this.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2008)

Calm down Kizmet. This isn't a battlescene with winners and losers.

Whatever point you've wished to make throughout this thread is fine. No-one was coercing you to go to this vigil/demo. 

The vigil/demo went on despite your lack of approbation. Oh no.

Calm down. The masses aren't always going to stay home nicely and mediate/medidate rather than making a bit of noise !!!!1


----------



## winjer (Apr 4, 2008)

ska invita said:


> Police pressence was high at the start, but most cleared off once the religious nobs were in the cathedral.


Police presence was minimal considering, even with the 20 search plod operating the X-ray machines for the faithful.



> A solution to this police cordon trap really needs to be found, or at least planned for. STWC stewards left the group behind and barely noticed that they were trapped back there.


Stewards didn't just leave them behind, they ushered people away from the car park entrance, even to the point of lying that Blair would "definitely be leaving by the front entrance".

The 80 TSG they brought in was ridiculous, considering their were at most 40 people round the back by then.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> Calm down Kizmet. This isn't a battlescene with winners and losers.



Calm isn't an issue, cesare.

Jonti made an accusation that was untrue and unfair and delibrately malicious. And I didn't like it.

I asked him to prove it or retract it. Instead he bricked it.

And I said so.. perfectly calm.

But I don't like your insinuation that I'm not calm.. as if I have no right to be angry. You would be.. so telling me to calm down just looks a bit snide, really.



> Whatever point you've wished to make throughout this thread is fine. *No-one was coercing you to go to this vigil/demo.*
> 
> The vigil/demo went on despite your lack of approbation. Oh no.
> 
> Calm down. The masses aren't always going to stay home nicely and mediate/medidate rather than making a bit of noise !!!!1



You know what, ces.. you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about on this one.



Badger Kitten said:


> of _course _it's silly. Like the Lone Mass Demos are silly ( against SOCPA) . Humour and silliness and eccentricity are some of our best weapons against war-mongering twats....





Kizmet said:


> Best post on the thread...
> 
> .. *was actually planning on going*.. but just for the silliness.


----------



## cesare (Apr 4, 2008)

Whatever. OK then.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Just back up your accusation of me being an apologist for a rapist.
> 
> No other conversation from you is necessary.. either back it up or retract it.


But it's true. You should know that.  Now you are slandering me as mailicious, because I'm telling the truth about your conduct.

Anyway, the gentle reader can see for themselves how you sought to deflect criticism of the BNP's Eriksen, in the thread "Senior BNP  member: Rape is a Myth".  Here you claimed that folks were not criticising his words; but you were just lying. Why lie about such a thing?  Rape is rape. You've shown your true colours here.

Folks are looking through you, Kismet. You pretend to be oh, so spiritual. But in reality you are a smug and smarmy fascist, wreathed in hippy smilies.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

And yes, you can't do sincere anymore. 

It's not the same as self-righteousness, you know!


----------



## co-op (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Actually I'd argue that I'm one of the few people _actually_ looking at what lies underneath.. and finding little of substance.



Horseshit. From your very first post on this thread asking if there would be any "cute girls" (which you claim is "satire"), through your po-faced and sanctimonious twaddle that a demo like this is "not listening to people who disagree", via straight abuse - "you're a twat" - more olympian sneering - "it's laughable" - it's an "NDO" - some typical webtroll snobbery ("banging your Le Creuset saucepans") until you finally managed to lurch right off-topic into a meaningless crossthread hijack about some bullshit elsewhere.

And yet you're so up your own arse that you think you are "one of the few people looking at what lies underneath"? Words pretty much fail me. 

And you claim at one point that you've only "consistently" made one point - namely that you dislike "mob" actions (what they are you don't attempt to define). In fact you mention this twice out of 61 posts. 

All you've done is wind people up, offer absolutely nothing constructive whatsoever in the way of alternatives, or of how actions at an event like this might be better etc etc.

You've diverted the thread into a Kismet ego-parade. 

Your narcissism shines through bright as the sun, so I am well prepared to believe that this is completely unconscious. But perhaps you could try and explain how your behaviour on here isn't just trolling?

See if you can do this without resorting to petty wind ups, insults or changing the subject. By the way, there are no medals for Not Being a Troll, so if you succeed you have won nothing except the right not to be ignored. At that point (if you are emotionally capable and psychologically adaptive enough to reach it) you might want to try and formulate some kind of intelligent response to an action like last nights - a response that, for example, creates a dialogue with those you are talking to (or that you claim to be attempting to talk to).


----------



## RubyToogood (Apr 4, 2008)

That was bloody loud. Was very grateful for the free earplugs.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 4, 2008)

It was very loud. You could hear it from 500 yards away. It was very determined and good natured and a real mixed bunch. Free earplugs were appreciated. I was there from 6pm - 7.20pm, then I had to go and meet some other non-demo-ing urbanites.
Coverage


This is London​



> Blair announced details of his Faith Foundation, to be launched later in the year, saying it could help "awaken the world's conscience" and bring religions together to eradicate poverty and hunger.
> 
> But the address on faith and globalisation, his first major speech since leaving office, was marked by *hundreds* of anti-war protesters staging a noisy demonstration outside.
> 
> ...





> As the audience departed demonstrators continued to make a noise, waving placards denouncing Mr Blair as a war criminal, and calling for him to be brought to trial.
> 
> Organisers said they were not attacking Mr Blair's freedom of speech, but his right to be treated as a pillar of respectability.
> 
> ...




Independent describes a ''major police operation''
Total Catholic

ITN


Press Asoociation
Islamic Republic News Agency

Daily Mail

Scotsman


----------



## co-op (Apr 4, 2008)

RubyToogood said:


> That was bloody loud. Was very grateful for the free earplugs.





I got offered some and turned them down because I couldn't hear what I was being offered! Only realised when I got home and I was talking about it...

Lucky I'm half deaf anyway.


----------



## RubyToogood (Apr 4, 2008)

co-op said:


> I got offered some and turned them down because I couldn't hear what I was being offered! Only realised when I got home and I was talking about it...
> 
> Lucky I'm half deaf anyway.


Same as actually  Then I realised everyone else had them and what I'd been offered.

Didn't realise people had been kettled up round the back though  I did wonder why a whole bunch of people disappeared and then didn't come back...


----------



## stat (Apr 4, 2008)

Great post, BadgerKitten


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 4, 2008)

RubyToogood said:


> Same as actually  Then I realised everyone else had them and what I'd been offered.
> 
> Didn't realise people had been kettled up round the back though  I did wonder why a whole bunch of people disappeared and then didn't come back...


Tipical plod. Even on the least challenging of occasions they manage to be heavy handed.


----------



## RubyToogood (Apr 4, 2008)

They must surely only do it as a show of strength and to deter people from going on these things.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 4, 2008)

RubyToogood said:


> They must surely only do it as a show of strength and to deter people from going on these things.



Yup.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 4, 2008)

RubyToogood said:


> They must surely only do it as a show of strength and to deter people from going on these things.




not sure... they let the demo go ahead full steam for quite a while before it turned ugly.  think it's more likely they wanted a clean exit route for Tony and chums.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> But it's true. You should know that.  Now you are slandering me as mailicious, because I'm telling the truth about your conduct.
> 
> Anyway, the gentle reader can see for themselves how you sought to deflect criticism of the BNP's Eriksen, in the thread "Senior BNP  member: Rape is a Myth".  Here you claimed that folks were not criticising his words; but you were just lying. Why lie about such a thing?  Rape is rape. You've shown your true colours here.
> 
> Folks are looking through you, Kismet. You pretend to be oh, so spiritual. But in reality you are a smug and smarmy fascist, wreathed in hippy smilies.



Now you're so desperate to save face that you'll even accuse an Asian man of being a supporter of the BNP... even though what I said was "Nail Eriksen, the cunt.." 

I guess in your world calling someone a cunt must be a term of endearment... 

... anyway, so far in a variety of threads you've acused me of everything from being a false hindu guru to a nasty con-man.. so I guess it's not going to be long before you accuse me of being a mass murderer or something.

But go for it.. every false accusation you make just makes you look petty and nasty to any half intelligent person.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

co-op said:


> Horseshit. From your very first post on this thread asking if there would be any "cute girls" (which you claim is "satire").



Anytime anyone holds a seemingly contrary opinion to the majority here on urban the calls of sneering and trolling come thick and fast.

It's par for the course, it seems.

The "cute girls" comment is actually a referrence to something that was said on the announcement thread for this event... so it clearly was meant to be satirical... if you could be bothered to research you'd have known this.

Also you accuse me of diverting the thread when clearly it was Jonti who brought it up and pressed the subject in the first place.

So basically... how can I take you seriously when you miss out vital facts just so you can have a whinge?

You wanna call me arrogant? That's cool. It's probably true. 
You wanna call me narcissistic? That's probably a bit true too. Sue me fuckwit. 

But you wanna call me a troll? Fine.. it's a nice and easy way to avoid having to deal with someone taking the piss out of you.

Of course.. to me the best way to deal with it is to have a bit of good-natured banter back.

But it seems that _some_ of you are incapable of such.

Hey ho. Glad you guys enjoyed it.


----------



## winjer (Apr 4, 2008)

RubyToogood said:


> They must surely only do it as a show of strength and to deter people from going on these things.


If it was just a show of strength, they'd have been there from the start (see for example this demo where they had 200 police in place from an hour before). They only had about 25 cops for the whole thing at the beginning.

They really panicked when people refused to follow stewards orders to move away from the car park entrance, that's why 8 TSG vans sped down Victoria Street in convoy with blues'n'twos blazing at about 9pm.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

citydreams said:


> they let the demo go ahead full steam for quite a while before it turned ugly



Here it is in plain fucking english for the one or two people who are incapable of noticing any subtlety of opinion...



Kizmet said:


> You see.. while people are there to have a great time.. all's good.
> 
> It's when people start going to express hatred and anger that I start to get nervous. For everyone's sake.



And now you're talking about how it turned ugly and how many police turned up and how someone got beaten up.

As if somehow that's a good thing. It's not to me.. it's counter-productive.. and I think if people lightened up and took themselves a little less seriously on some of these things - the same point would be made (fingers in their ears to anything blair has to say) but there would be no counter-productive violence or potential harm. I think BK's attitude on it was spot on - make some noise, get on the news be a bit silly and have a good time... then go have dinner.


I tried to do all this in the way of banter so it wouldn't have come across so preachy.. but I didn't factor in how _precious_ some folk can be. My bad.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> you're talking about how it turned ugly and how many police turned up and how someone got beaten up.
> 
> As if somehow that's a good thing



Where did I say that's a good thing?  Nowhere.

The point of the demo, imo, was to let Blair know he's not welcome.  

The fact that he needs police protection is undoubtable.  

The important element is that, in the end, the police acted against the rights of the citizen in favour of Blair.

Having been on a number of demos I know how quickly the police switch from onlookers to aggravaters.  I've no doubt that their level of violence was uneccessary.

Yet you seem to be apologising for police brutuality.  Despite the fact that you weren't even there.

I think that makes you a hypocrite.

You were better off when you were just being a twat.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Where did I say that's a good thing?  Nowhere.
> 
> .....
> 
> ...



You were one of the ones I had in mind when I mentioned  not noticing subtlety of opinion... you just have to place anyone who disagrees as a polar opposite, don't you?

Are you incapable of thinking in any other terms?

How am I apologising for police brutality?

They act unnecessarily.. doesn't mean you have to.. in fact the less uneccesarily you act - the more power you have.


Whereas you seemed to welcome the violence with your comment previously about being a regular and being able to find witnesses or whatever.



citydreams said:


> let me know if I can help for witnesses &c.. I'm a regular..


----------



## winjer (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I tried to do all this in the way of banter so it wouldn't have come across so preachy.. but I didn't factor in how _precious_ some folk can be. My bad.


Wow. None quite as precious as you.

If only people lightened up and took war and torture and internment less seriously wouldn't everything be just great? You're fucked up.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

winjer said:


> Wow. None quite as precious as you.
> 
> If only people lightened up and took war and torture and internment less seriously wouldn't everything be just great? You're fucked up.



That's not what I said, though, was it?

I didn't say take _the issues_ less seriously.. I said take _themselves_ less seriously.

Fucking learn to read.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

I think the noise must have knocked some of your brains out.


----------



## winjer (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> That's not what I said, though, was it?



Yes, it is.



> I didn't say take _the issues_ less seriously.. I said take _themselves_ less seriously.



"make some noise, get on the news be a bit silly and have a good time... then go have dinner."

Fucking learn to think.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

winjer said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> "make some noise, get on the news be a bit silly and have a good time... then go have dinner."
> 
> Fucking learn to think.



That was paraphrasing BK.

Way to go, winjer. How to live up to your name...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Anyway... I don't want to think like you, winjer.. the thought sends chills down my spine...


----------



## citydreams (Apr 4, 2008)

winjer said:


> If only people lightened up and took war and torture and internment less seriously wouldn't everything be just great? You're fucked up.



an absolute mentalist...  he's right, it's almost funny.

doesn't stop me wanting to throw him in the back of a police wagon for a while though


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Dude..... I don't swing that way...


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> ... I think if people lightened up and took themselves a little less seriously ...


Fantastic display of self-awareness there! 

These words remind me of someone ... guess who? 






			
				M. Scott Peck said:
			
		

> defined an evil person as someone who is totally unwilling to admit fault or to try to understand him or herself. It’s just too painful. So, in order to avoid having to do that, the evil person spends his or her whole life trying to make other people and himself see himself as he would like to be seen, rather than as he really is.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 4, 2008)

I take the issues of war, torture, and repressive state legislation VERY seriously. Seriously enough to campaign about them and make the effort to physically turn up to protests to register that my government does not act in my name and that as a voter, I object to illegal wars,  torture and repressive legislation. 

 However, I try, when demonstrating ( or writing or campaigning) to retain my humanity and sense of humour and to come across as reasonable. I think demonstrations where the crowd is passionate but non-violent and good-humoured are _far more effective_ than angry mobs. It is also far safer for demonstrators and gets the point across better because you come across as human, reasonable _and so harder to ignore._

Which is _the whole point._


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Fantastic display of self-awareness there!



The thing is, Jonti.. I can back up my words:



Kizmet said:


> That's actually quite funny by your standards, jonti.
> 
> .. and I wasn't disagreeing with him... just making the point that if I'm retarded then, comparitively, I'm surprised you can work out how to _breathe_ without pictorial instructions....



As you can see... I'm perfectly able to handle some banter.

But thread after thread you just follow me round making progressively nastier and nastier accusations.. you never back them up and then when you've had your arse handed to you on a plate you slink off muttering to yourself.

Fucking get a grip man, I am NOT the focus of all your insecurities. Stop following me round and cross-threading. Or I'll be forced to report it. And I haven't done that before.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> I take the issues of war, torture, and repressive state legislation VERY seriously. Seriously enough to campaign about them and make the effort to physically turn up to register that my government does not act in my name and that as a voter, I object to illegal wars,  torture and repressive legislation.
> 
> However, I try, when demonstrating ( or writing or campaigning) to retain my humanity and sense of humour and to come across as reasonable. *I think demonstrations where the crowd is passionate but non-violent and good-humoured are far more effective than angry mobs.*It is also far safer for demonstrators and gets the point across better because you come across as human, reasonable _and so harder to ignore._
> 
> Which is _the whole point._



Spot on. 

And it's exactly my point too.

To be honest I didn't start on this thread thinking that yours would be an opinion that I would consider as an example... but it turns out that it is. Life is full of surprises.


----------



## stat (Apr 4, 2008)

does anyone know which exit tony slithered out from?


----------



## co-op (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Anytime anyone holds a seemingly contrary opinion to the majority here on urban the calls of sneering and trolling come thick and fast.
> 
> It's par for the course, it seems.



The reason I've called you a troll is because you have now posted 69 times and it still isn't even remotely clear what you're doing on this thread except winding people up. You've posted several different reasons for being here some of them obviously contradictory ("people should take themselves less seriously" vs "people are just going to have a Nice Day Out"), others just passing references to "mobs" etc. You've claimed at least once that you've "consistently" said something that you've referred to twice in 69 posts! It's totally incoherent. 

The one common tread running through is You. 69 posts and I haven't got a clue what you think or why you think it. 

That looks like trolling.I asked if you could persuade me why that might not be the case. You've resorted straight away to the troll's favourite claim of wounded minority non-clique blah blah blah.

More evidence that you are just a time-waster here I think.



Kizmet said:


> The "cute girls" comment is actually a referrence to something that was said on the announcement thread for this event... so it clearly was meant to be satirical... if you could be bothered to research you'd have known this..



I'm talking about THIS thread. That's all I've ever referred to - THIS thread. You have some little cross-thread confusion you want to bring in, you quote it, it's not my job to "research" your posts elsewhere. Leaping around, changing the subject, referring elsewhere. All troll-like behaviour.

THIS thread. See if you can answer in terms of THIS thread. Life's too short to read the entire internet before I'm allowed to challenge idiotic behaviour.





Kizmet said:


> Also you accuse me of diverting the thread when clearly it was Jonti who brought it up and pressed the subject in the first place.



"He started it!". Childish (and very possibly true, I have so little interest I can't be bothered to go and see). But I didn't say you started it I said you diverted it. Together with Jonti you did. It's nothing to do with the subject of the thread but - guess what! - it means we all get to talk about you YOU YOU again. Hoorah! 




Kizmet said:


> So basically... how can I take you seriously when you miss out vital facts just so you can have a whinge?.



"Vital facts"? Pathetic. And the little dig having a "whinge". This isn't a whinge. I'm telling you I think you've posted shite all over this thread. 

You will take me seriously because you are grown up enough to feel you have to. Or you won't because you aren't grown up enough. Either is fine by me, but we'll have it out in the open whichever you are.



Kizmet said:


> You wanna call me arrogant? That's cool. It's probably true.
> You wanna call me narcissistic? That's probably a bit true too. Sue me fuckwit.
> 
> But you wanna call me a troll? Fine.. it's a nice and easy way to avoid having to deal with someone taking the piss out of you.
> ...



I love the way you've gone all teenaged here "you wanna? you wanna?".


Yes I did want to call you arrogant and narcissistic, because that's how your posts on this thread have come over loud and clear - as indeed does this one I'm answering now. But that isn't because I just woke up this morning and felt like it, it's a response to what you've posted. Do you see? It's cause and effect thing.

How exactly does saying that you're behaving like a troll make it nice and easy to avoid having to deal with you?

And would that be unlike calling someone you disagree with a "fuckwit". Or is that what you call "dealing with me"?


You need to grow up.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

So, do you have a problem with seeing yourself as others see you or something? Are you saying ... that this applies to you ...





> an evil person [is] someone who is totally unwilling to admit fault or to try to understand him or herself. It’s just too painful. So, in order to avoid having to do that, the evil person spends his or her whole life trying to make other people and himself see himself as he would like to be seen, rather than as he really is.


Perhaps you feel others will see you in this light?


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 4, 2008)

stat said:


> does anyone know which exit tony slithered out from?



The Catholic primary school car park in the street on the left.


----------



## winjer (Apr 4, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> I think demonstrations where the crowd is passionate but non-violent and good-humoured are _far more effective_ than angry mobs. It is also far safer for demonstrators and gets the point across better because you come across as human, reasonable _and so harder to ignore._



Are you suggesting it's inhuman to be angry? That's a little bizarre.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 4, 2008)

Nope, that is not what I am suggesting.

How bizarre.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

It's not inhuman; but displays of anger can be counter-productive.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

co-op said:


> I haven't got a clue what you think or why you think it.



Then you should work it out or not bother -  instead of wasting _both_ our times.

My position is clear.. I _personally_ don't like 'nice day out' politics.

However.. given that it's going to happen anyway I'd rather it stayed as nice day out for everyone.

But angry mobs have a tendancy to get ugly. That's why I don't like angry mobs.

So I say go - but try not to be so angry. What purpose does it achieve and is that anger going to be effective? Who are you really angry at and why?

Perhaps my piss-taking and abrasive posting style brings out the knobheads from any crowd... perhaps that's what I want.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

Uhhh, perhaps your piss-taking and abrasive posting makes you a knobhead.  And gives you a chance to play the martyr when you're called on it.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Uhhh, perhaps your piss-taking and abrasive posting makes you a knobhead.



Perhaps. In a way. 

But then we can all be knobheads together.. and let the ones watching and reading and keeping quiet be safe in the knowledge that they aren't.


----------



## winjer (Apr 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> It's not inhuman; but displays of anger can be counter-productive.


As can displays of obedience.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> And gives you a chance to play the martyr when you're called on it.



Oh.. and by the way.. playing the martyr? No.

I just love arguing with knobheads. The more the merrier.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Do you remember what I said to you once? When an idiot calls you an idiot - it's a double negative. It's almost a compliment.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 4, 2008)

winjer said:


> As can displays of obedience.





Can you be a little less enigmatic? I get the feeling there's a point about direct action vs. peaceful protest trying to be made but it's hard to know if I'm right when you come out with Yoda-isms.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 4, 2008)

winjer said:


> Stewards didn't just leave them behind, they ushered people away from the car park entrance, even to the point of lying that Blair would "definitely be leaving by the front entrance".



You're right about that - the explenation I heard was that we couldnt be heard by the congreagation if we were round the back, hence stay at the front. Fair enough to stay at the front whilst the main punters were leaving, but I think we all wanted to see Blair in person.

By the time the last religious nutbag had trickled out of the cathedral everyone had cleared off, or did so soon after, leaving those round the back penned up for another 2 hours at least. 

How much could we be heard inside? I was dissapointed to see Blair on the box, and I couldnt really hear us. Supposedly STWC did have someone on the inside, so Im curious to hear their report on that.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet;7329143]... I just love arguing with knobheads. The more the merrier. :)[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Kizmet said:


> Do you remember what I said to you once? When an idiot calls you an idiot - it's a double negative. It's almost a compliment...


Priceless!

You really couldn't make it up!!!


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Priceless!
> 
> You really couldn't make it up!!!



No.. it's absolutely true.. it just depends which side of the fence you're sitting on. 

See the thing is.. I might be a bit of a knob in trying to start a bit of banter with a fairly serious point on a fairly po-faced thread.... but you?

You blundered into the thread to pick up on old grudges and cross threaded a malicious and untrue accusation. Oh.. and you never answered frogwoman's question as to whether you actually went to the demo yourself.

In the battle of the knobheads you got me beat.. hands down. You truly are the master.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Perhaps. In a way.
> 
> But then we can all be knobheads together.. and let the ones watching and reading and keeping quiet be safe in the knowledge that they aren't.




So come on, Jonti... let's see if you can admit there's even the _possibility_ that you're being a knobhead. 

I don't think you can. I reckon you'll be like Kryten in Red Dwarf when he was trying to swear.. and the words just won't come out... 

"I'm being a Knoobhaaad
Kneehuuurgh
Knaabhoooo
Kne..

I can't do it mister kizmet, sir.."

In fact you'll probably have to get someone else to write it for you .. you pompous little fuck.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No.. it's absolutely true.. it just depends which side of the fence you're sitting on.


If something is absolutely true, then how can it _just depend_?


----------



## co-op (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Then you should work it out or not bother -  instead of wasting _both_ our times.
> 
> My position is clear.. I _personally_ don't like 'nice day out' politics.
> 
> ...



Coherence. Hallejulah!

And honest. Fair enough. It's not far from what I feel, except I've got nothing against politics involving a nice day out. Basically your position seems to involve no demonstrations at all.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> So come on, Jonti... let's see if you can admit there's even the _possibility_ that you're being a knobhead.
> 
> I don't think you can. I reckon you'll be like Kryten in Red Dwarf when he was trying to swear.. and the words just won't come out...
> 
> ...


Your nastiness is showing.  

It's really not very spiritual you know.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Told you.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

No, Kismet. That won't work. You are a liar, and you've been caught at it fair and square. 

You've challenged me to prove what I say, so here you are.

There's an interesting pattern to your lies and disruption. Many people have seen it. And now you've been caught out. Not before time, I think.

Goodbye, liar.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> There's an interesting pattern to your lies and disruption.



Yeah yeah.. I'm the demon in human form.. the apothecary of evil, the pattisserie of baked badness. 

Why do you insist on posting links that don't prove what you say? I bet you rely on the fact that some people won't read them. 


Anyway...

Since I'm now the possessor of your balls.. is there anywhere you'd like me to post them?

They're rather small though.. so postage will be cheap.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

co-op said:


> Coherence. Hallejulah!
> 
> And honest. Fair enough. It's not far from what I feel, except I've got nothing against politics involving a nice day out.



I guess, in practice, neither do I... anything that gets people up and involved has got to be a good thing.

Especially if there are cute girls.. 



> Basically your position seems to involve no demonstrations at all.



Well, not quite. As BK said the best traditions of british politics have been based on humour, peacefulness and silliness.

I don't like the attraction to people who think it's ... they represent to me the proportion that go along looking for excitement or trouble.

And no-one should get hurt.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

*Lest we forget what this is about ...*

It's about how Blair and his fellow travelers lied us into an unnecessary war ... 



			
				Jonti said:
			
		

> All we have is our voice to undo the hardy lie.
> Terror is never our choice. It's better for them to die.
> Rather than kill, should I die? If I must, is it best to do both?
> Or should we send robots that fly to waste in the name of our oath?
> ...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

*bites tongue*


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> *bites tongue*



what an absolute prick you are


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

smokedout said:


> what an absolute prick you are



Bite me. After what he said.. that response was restrained. If you don't think so - Fuck you.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2008)

not interested in arguing with you

but thanks for proving my point


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

smokedout said:


> not interested in arguing with you
> 
> but thanks for proving my point



Interested only in name-calling.

You don't have a point.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 4, 2008)

A name liked 'smoked-out' a tagline like 'criminal' and a quick scan of your post history reveals hundreds of posts of bullshit antagonistic bile... you sound exactly like the kind of aggressive knobhead that fucks things up for everyone else. Because they think they're cool.

So thanks for making _my_ point.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 4, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> His war has led to the deaths of *up to a million innocent Iraqis.*



I'm not sure if being ambiguous about figures helps the cause any more than protesting about it does.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 4, 2008)

As General Franks said, "_We don't do bodycounts_". 

So that makes it hard to be precise. But estimates range from 100,000 to 1m casualties of the Bush/Blair war of aggression against Iraq.  

Iraq Body Count documents the civillian deaths it can.


----------



## HarrisonSlade (Apr 5, 2008)

I was at Westminster Cathedral with my harmonica, and found the whole day exhausting, but absolute fun. It was clear that the BBC only wanted to show that there were only a few people there, and so were far too busy filming the bits where very few people were milling around. Myself, and my band mate decided to block the reporters view, to which the reporter became aggresive, telling us to fuck off, to which we replied that the pavement did not belong to the Blair Broadcasting Corporation, and was public access. 

I felt angry about the coverage then, as I feel even more livid about the little coverage later. 

However, as much as I believe Tony Blair to being a war criminal, I was not there for that reason, and was there pretty much for the musical project. One of which I felt was extremelly clever. However much Pax Christie and the Islamic Front (sorry, I meant the SWP)  wanted to turn it into a purely religious and political event, the fact was that, as much as everyone who was there were anti war, many wouldn't have turned up if there was no art involved. And, let's face it, if Brian Eno wasn't going to be there it would have been even smaller. 

I do have to say that it was humorous when Peter Mandellson looked as though he was going to crapp himself after being shoved and called a child killer by a lot of people, as the police looked on as though it was funny. Or when one young "revolutionary" shouted to us that Tony Blair was about to leave the back exit, and everyone just shrugged. 

Apart from being told to be quiet because the cocksuckers of Pax Christie  and the Islamic Front wanted to pray for the dying (I mean, some of these guys were even more authoritarian than the Police), it was a jolly eventful day. It was, what my brother would call a happening, and I am proud to have been part of it.


----------



## treelover (Apr 6, 2008)

Badger Kitten, its great you do the high profile work on human rights etc, but with your admittedly high media visibility do you ever speak out on domestic issues? (as indeed another HR activist, Peter Tachell does) the massive welfare benefits cuts, lie detectors being used on claimants, privatisation of the NHS, the housing crisis and rising homelessness/inadequate accommodations, massive levels of inequality here in the U.K.  I see these as human rights as well, strangely liberty and liberal campaigners and others don't.....


'I take the issues of war, torture, and repressive state legislation VERY seriously. Seriously enough to campaign about them and make the effort to physically turn up to protests to register that my government does not act in my name and that as a voter, I object to illegal wars, torture and repressive legislation.'


----------



## Badger Kitten (Apr 6, 2008)

There are many worthy causes and I wish I had time to campaign on lots of things but like most people, I'm limited in terms of time as to what I can actually do. I tend to focus on the causes where I've put the research time in and where, being brutally honest I have a small amount of leverage because of my background. It is actually ridiculous that just because of what happened to me I should be given a platform, because I am nobody special, just an ordinary person with a blog who now writes professionally, which is something you could say of thousands of other people... I have said as much many times. But there you go, I _did _end up with a platform of sorts and I try to use it to try to speak out about subjects I am passionately involved with. Terrorism, civil liberties, the war on terror - that's where I am at the moment, that's the platform I stand on, it's where I have been given some 'right' to speak and be heard. Because of what happened to me. It's how it works.

Maybe as time goes on people will get past the personal link/background stuff and be interested in other things I have to say, maybe they will get sick of me and not take any notice by the summer, who knows, but at the moment it's a constant battle to stretch it so that I don't just get wheeled on as an effing symbolic victim and pigeonholed in that way. Peter Tatchell became known for his gay rights stuff first, then moved into other areas. Most people have a 'thing' that they are known for, rather than a scatter-gun approach; Rose Gentle of  Military Families Against the War doesn't speak out about housing or homelessness for example, because she's associated with a different issue. She probably has opinions on them like everyone else but there you go. 


The non-terrorism 'domestic' issue I speak out about  is rape and rape convictions. Again, because of my background.  It's annoying, but all I can do is bash away and try to say things when I can.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 9, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> The question to me.. is about why. So yes.. you need to tell me what constitutes winning before you can tell me whether we can win it or not.


 
Further to this point... anyone catch Obama's questions to Crocker and Petreaus today?



> OBAMA: No, no, that wasn't the question. I'm not suggesting that we yank all our troops out all the way. I'm trying to get to an endpoint. That's what all of us have been trying to get to.
> And, see, the problem I have is *if the definition of success is so high, no traces of Al Qaida and no possibility of reconstitution, a highly-effective Iraqi government, a Democratic multiethnic, multi- sectarian functioning democracy, no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don't like, then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.*
> If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like. "


 
So here's the inestimable Obama.. making the same constituent point as I've made... an even HE doesn't know what consitutes success (winning) this war.

And yet YOU do?

And you've already decided we can't win it?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 9, 2008)

That's a bit like chosing the length of a piece of string once you've run out of yarn though isn't it?

Untold dead civilians who've lost their lives to Western intervention and we can look forward to a "messy, sloppy status quo".

That doesn't sound like winning to me.  

And what makes Obama inestimable? Is it the fact that his measurable timeframe doesn't come in measurable costs? 

Further:



			
				Senate Committee said:
			
		

> OBAMA: *It's obviously not perfect. There's still violence, there's still some traces of Al Qaida, Iran has influence more than we would like*. But if we had the current status quo, and yet our troops had been drawn down to 30,000, would we consider that a success? Would that meet our criteria, or would that not be good enough and we'd have to devote even more resources to it?
> 
> CROCKER: Senator, I can't imagine the current status quo being sustainable with that kind of precipitous drawdown.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802607.html

So, as long as the terrorists don't have a known base, they've won the war on terror?  

You really think that was worth going to war over Kizmet?  How do you justify it?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 10, 2008)

citydreams said:


> That's a bit like chosing the length of a piece of string once you've run out of yarn though isn't it?



I'm not sure. How so?



> Untold dead civilians who've lost their lives to Western intervention and we can look forward to a "messy, sloppy status quo".
> 
> That doesn't sound like winning to me.



Which is why I asked you what you would define as winning.



> And what makes Obama inestimable? Is it the fact that his measurable timeframe doesn't come in measurable costs?



Inestimable is a compliment in Obama's case. I think he's fantastic but I can't work him out. He says absolutely all the right things.

But fuck if that doesn't make me suspicious... _no-one_ says all the right things...



> You really think that was worth going to war over Kizmet?  How do you justify it?



Justifying it isn't what we're talking about here. And even if it was.. I don't think I could, fully.

What we're talking about is the clear and present situation. Should we have been in this war, shouldn't we... these are impossible to answer questions until there is an outcome. A winner... as you put it. And what defines winning?

So that's what I'm trying to get out of you.. any fool can rant on about 'politicians lying to us' and illegal wars and war criminals.

Empty rhetoric.

What will mark you out from them is if you have an idea of what specific motives are at the heart of this war. It's these that give you an idea of what constitutes success.

The more you come up with, in my opinion.. the less of a fool you are.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 10, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> What we're talking about is the clear and present situation. Should we have been in this war, shouldn't we... these are impossible to answer questions until there is an outcome. A winner... as you put it. And what defines winning?



The UN didn't think it a very difficult question.  Nor did the majority of the UK.  

I said Tony Blair could never have won because he went to war for the wrong reasons.  He lost before he even got started.  He fucked the Middle East without a condom, and we've all been infected with a disease.  You want to wait and see whether the price was worth paying?  It's too late for that.  

The reason for war seems pretty much undisuputed, a faked document from Nigeria showing that Iraq had W.M.D.   

We were lied to, on more than once occassion, in an attempt to claim the moral highground.  That's why he had no chance of winning.  There were no goalposts.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 10, 2008)

Kismet's argument is infantile. It comes down to "You can never know how things will turn out in the end, so anything goes."

Make that "_infantile and depraved_".


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 11, 2008)

Actually... where did I say 'anything goes'? Not once.

But, as ever, accuracy is waay to much to ask of you.. so we'll let that one go, shall we?

You can call it infantile if you like, Jonti. But I've found that's often something said by someone incapable of answering a simple question....






... mmm. 'Depraved', though? Yeah. I think I'll keep that one. I quite like it.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 11, 2008)

Amongst the many, many differences between us, I suspect, Jonti... is that where there are gaps in our knowledge - I prefer to accept them.. whereas you prefer to fill them with bullshit....



The problem comes when you start to lose track of where you put the holes... which is why you seem like a very intelligent man and yet are consistently wrong about almost everything.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 11, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I said Tony Blair could never have won because he went to war for the wrong reasons.  He lost before he even got started.  He fucked the Middle East without a condom, and we've all been infected with a disease.  You want to wait and see whether the price was worth paying?  It's too late for that.



You've just repeated yourself, mate.. in the post you just replied to I asked you to talk about some of the reason he went to war.

I don't understand what you mean by 'it's too late to wait and see if the price was worth paying'.. what else can we do?



> The reason for war seems pretty much undisuputed, a faked document from Nigeria showing that Iraq had W.M.D.
> 
> We were lied to, on more than once occassion, in an attempt to claim the moral highground.  That's why he had no chance of winning.



We're always lied to.. by everyone. All the time. You surely must be used to it by now? 

But that's not what i meant by motives... the document was part of the 'justification'... and that's not the same thing at all.



> There were no goalposts.



It wasn't a game.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 11, 2008)

citydreams said:


> The UN didn't think it a very difficult question.  Nor did the majority of the UK.
> 
> I said Tony Blair could never have won because he went to war for the wrong reasons.  He lost before he even got started.  He fucked the Middle East without a condom, and we've all been infected with a disease.  You want to wait and see whether the price was worth paying?  It's too late for that.
> 
> ...


This puts in a nutshell.

We were never going to win in Iraq because the invasion was based on lies right from the get-go. There were no goalposts.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 11, 2008)

It's a valid opinion.
Not a good one... but valid.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 11, 2008)

Surely Obama is merely saying that because, as he has indicated many times, he is pro-occupation and doesn't want to even look at the idea of having failure criteria?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 11, 2008)

Is that his great character flaw?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 11, 2008)

Is what his great character flaw?


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2008)

Argument for the sake of argument. Good to keep it contained to this thread though.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 12, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Surely Obama is merely saying that because, as he has indicated many times, he is pro-occupation and doesn't want to even look at the idea of having failure criteria?



Obama's pro-occupation?  didn't he oppose the war??


----------



## Jonti (Apr 12, 2008)

He did oppose the war, yes, like any other decent and sane person who'd read the situation accurately. And this is what he says about the occupation ... 






			
				Barack Obama said:
			
		

> When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
> 
> The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
> 
> ...


source


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 12, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is what his great character flaw?



Spin?

Redefining failure as success doesn't make it so.

But it was an idle question... Obama is as yet unknown.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 12, 2008)

Jonti said:


> like any other decent and sane person who'd read the situation accurately.



Why did they rely on intelligence information that wasn't available to the public... when they could have just asked you and you could have quoted them some links from the internet and saved everyone the bother?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 12, 2008)

It was I admit pushing it a bit to call him "pro-occupation" in the context of the other candidates. But in general, despite him saying "we have to leave" he's couching it in terms of having to be "as careful getting out as we were getting in", which to me says "troop withdrawal as and when we can be sure of maintaining the current puppet government". He wouldn't even commit to having troops out by the end of his first term if he won. It may not be the rantings of Bush and McCain, but their opinion is on its way out, and I don't really have any particular confidence to be honest.


----------



## tangentlama (Apr 13, 2008)

Badger Kitten said:


> Tony Blair is a war criminal. He lied to Parliament, the nation and the world about the presence of WMD in Iraq. His war has led to the deaths of upto a million innocent Iraqis.
> 
> But instead of standing in the dock, he will be preaching the virtues of globalisation from the pulpit of Westminster Cathedral. We need not be reminded what Blair means by globalisation, Iraq has taught us that.
> 
> ...



Banging pots and pans are the traditional way - and with food shortages across the world, most apt - great idea!


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 13, 2008)

cesare said:


> Argument for the sake of argument. Good to keep it contained to this thread though.


 
As opposed to argument for the sake of _appearances_, eh ces?


----------



## cesare (Apr 13, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> As opposed to argument for the sake of _appearances_, eh ces?



What do you mean?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

Well, ces, what was the point of saying that unless it was to make an _appearance_?


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Well, ces, what was the point of saying that unless it was to make an _appearance_?



Which might have been a good point if I'd been previously uninvolved in the thread.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Well, ces, what was the point of saying that unless it was to make an _appearance_?



Seems to me the point Cesare is making is that you have posted on this thread as if you have an opinon, but the substance of your posts has only gone so far as to question/argue without any substance.

Some facts for you:

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq "1,197,469"
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
===
Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America'sWar On Iraq 4,033
http://icasualties.org/oif/
The War in Iraq Costs
$510,873,713,789
===

And an article suggesting that "the war" needs to change focus, again..
Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials. 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19720.htm


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Not that the "old war" is going to go away any day soon though..

Sadr: Gates will be my enemy forever :  
Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says he will not enter any kind of political process that would allow US forces to remain in Iraq. 
http://www.presstv.com/pop/wmp.aspx?id=51206


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Seems to me the point Cesare is making is that you have posted on this thread as if you have an opinon, but the substance of your posts has only gone so far as to question/argue without any substance.



Sorry.. say that again? The substance of my post questions without substance? Freak.

Don't judge my questions, dude. Answer them if you can. Question why I'm asking if you must. But answer them.

Because they're designed to find out if your opinion has any substance.



You've not really asked me my opinions.. but here you are on a thread blatantly displaying and voicing yours... so questioning you is perfectly fair.

No pre-judging... by your answers shall we judge.


Oh and by the way, I think it's fairly clear from my posting style that I never use five words when one will do. This means that you have to _think_ about what I say. Do it or don't do it. But don't be stupid enough to think it means any less because of that.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

cesare said:


> Which might have been a good point if I'd been previously uninvolved in the thread.



Your involvement, if I recall correctly, included an un-related and untrue allegation from another thread.

So, no, I think it's still a damn good point, ces.


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Your involvement, if I recall correctly, included an un-related and untrue allegation from another thread.
> 
> So, no, I think it's still a damn good point, ces.



Well anyone reading the thread/s will be able to make up their own minds, won't they?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

cesare said:


> Well anyone reading the thread/s will be able to make up their own minds, won't they?



Of course.

But if they can read properly... they'll come to the same conclusion that I did:

'How can calling someone a cunt who should be strung up.. mean that you support them...? They are opposites - ergo - It can't.'

So, as long as they have minds, I'm confident.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> It's a valid opinion.
> Not a good one... but valid.



Style over substance.



Kizmet said:


> Justifying it isn't what we're talking about here.



No? then what are you going on about?



> What we're talking about is the clear and present situation. Should we have been in this war, shouldn't we... these are impossible to answer questions until there is an outcome.



More empty rhetoric.   

Emphatically, without doubt, unreservedly, we should not, in any way, have gone to war.

Which part don't you understand?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

I don't understand why you wasted your time picking up fragments of what I've said instead of answering the fucking questions.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

What question?


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Of course.
> 
> But if they can read properly... they'll come to the same conclusion that I did:
> 
> ...



Ok then.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

You forgot to say 'Whatever.'


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> What question?



    Dionysodorus: So you say that you wish Cleinias to become wise?

    Socrates: Undoubtedly.

    Dionysodorus: And he is not wise as yet?

    Socrates: At least his modesty will not allow him to say that he is.

    Dionysodorus: You wish him to become wise and not to be ignorant?

    Socrates: That we do.

    Dionysodorus: [...] You wish him no longer to be what he is, which can only mean that you wish him to perish. Pretty lovers and friends they must be who want their favourite not to be, or to perish!


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

That's lame.

Incapable of answering a difficult question.. the arrogant mind turns to accusations of sophism.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> What question?



Question*s*.

There have been quite a few.. and all of them based on the things you've said. I asked you who you felt angry towards and why.. amongst other things.


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> That's lame.
> 
> Incapable of answering a difficult question.. the arrogant mind turns to accusations of sophism.




Another example right here.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Question*s*.
> 
> There have been quite a few.. and all of them based on the things you've said. I asked you who you felt angry towards and why.. amongst other things.



Well, this is a thread about protesting against Tony Blair.  I've made reference to him in several of my posts.  And I've criticised his decision to go to war.

I would draw you a map, but I'm worried you'll try and colour in your monitor.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> That's lame.
> 
> Incapable of answering a difficult question.. the arrogant mind turns to accusations of sophism.



Or sophism itself.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Well, this is a thread about protesting against Tony Blair.  I've made reference to him in several of my posts.  And I've criticised his decision to go to war.
> 
> I would draw you a map, but I'm worried you'll try and colour in your monitor.



Well, it may bring some life to your dull posts...

If you had any ability to link together relevant posts you'd remember that I asked you to be _more_ specific.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Or sophism itself.



That's true also. So the best response? :

Answer the questions.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Well, it may bring some life to your dull posts...
> 
> If you had any ability to link together relevant posts you'd remember that I asked you to be _more_ specific.



Sorry I'm not making a discussion about the death of innocents and the guilt of our prime minister exciting enough for you.  Perhaps if you had an attention span longer that a four year old we might be able to have a grown up conversation.

Isn't this specific enough?



citydreams said:


> Some facts for you:
> 
> Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq "1,197,469"
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
> ...





citydreams said:


> Not that the "old war" is going to go away any day soon though..
> 
> Sadr: Gates will be my enemy forever :
> Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says he will not enter any kind of political process that would allow US forces to remain in Iraq.
> http://www.presstv.com/pop/wmp.aspx?id=51206


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Sorry I'm not making a discussion about the death of innocents and the guilt of our prime minister exciting enough for you.



It's not exciting I'm looking for, it's accuracy.



> Perhaps if you had an attention span longer that a four year old we might be able to have a grown up conversation.



Perhaps if you had an opinion more sophisticated than than a four year olds... I might pay more attention.



> Isn't this specific enough?



No. Clearly it isn't. You talk in hindsight... which is easy. But you make declarations about 'forseight' which is not so easy.

Blair is the figurehead of your anger... but surely you have some idea of the differnt motives and forces that led to this war?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Perhaps if you had an opinion more sophisticated than than a four year olds... I might pay more attention.



Wow, you must be a great father 



> You talk in hindsight... which is easy. But you make declarations about 'forseight' which is not so easy.



It's very easy.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew what trouble waited for our troops once Sadam was disposed.

Also, you must recall that there was no 'exit strategy'? Or were you to busy trying to be funny at the time?



> Blair is the figurehead of your anger... but surely you have some idea of the differnt motives and forces that led to this war?



What does it matter, at this point in our conversation, what the different motives and forces that led to this war were?  The point of this protest was to get at Blair.  So the point of your query should be about Blair.

Your problem seems to me that you are couching your (semantic) argument around the idea that Tony couldn't win.  It might be more profitable were we to say that in fact he could only lose.  Tony Blair lost as soon as he committed our troops, for many reasons.  
1. The war was illegal / there were no WMD
2. His electorate didn't want a war
3. There was no exit strategy, so
4. the war created a political vacuum
5. There was no way they could topple Sadam without spilling civilian blood, and
6. It could only lead to a rise in terrorism and hatred of the 'imperialist' west.
All of this seems completely self-evident.


----------



## Fruitloop (Apr 14, 2008)

In fact, if anyone can be bothered to trawl through the archived pre-war threads, they will find plenty of U75ers predicting pretty much exactly what would happen.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Wow, you must be a great father



I try.

But I think my daughter makes more sense than you... but then she IS six.



> It's very easy.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew what trouble waited for our troops once Sadam was disposed.
> 
> Also, you must recall that there was no 'exit strategy'? Or were you to busy trying to be funny at the time?



Was Blair solely responsible for these?



> What does it matter, at this point in our conversation, what the different motives and forces that led to this war were?  The point of this protest was to get at Blair.  So the point of your query should be about Blair.



Don't you see? I'm questioning your hatred of Blair.



> Your problem seems to me that you are couching your (semantic) argument around the idea that Tony couldn't win.  It might be more profitable were we to say that in fact he could only lose.  Tony Blair lost as soon as he committed our troops, for many reasons.
> 1. The war was illegal / there were no WMD
> 2. His electorate didn't want a war
> 3. There was no exit strategy, so
> ...



All of those are self evident... but none of those have anything to do with winning and losing.. equally was Blair solely responsible for them all?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> In fact, if anyone can be bothered to trawl through the archived pre-war threads, they will find plenty of U75ers predicting pretty much exactly what would happen.



And some predicting the opposite, etc.

No-one is arguing about the current state of matters.. what we're arguing about is anger and hatred and targets for them.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Was Blair solely responsible for these?



At this moment in time, I don't care.  He was soley in charge of this country.  



> Don't you see? I'm questioning your hatred of Blair.



Yes, but to what end?  



> All of those are self evident... but *none of those have anything to do with winning and losing.. *



..Huh?  please explain.. ?  How do these have nothing to do with winning or losing?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2008)

better that people take their anger and hatred out on a target like blair than go and beat up an old lady or something.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> At this moment in time, I don't care.  He was soley in charge of this country.



A symptom of a blame culture?



> Yes, but to what end?



You want me to take you right back to post number 62?



Kizmet said:


> Fucking mobs, man. Humanity at it's lowest ebb. In theory a whole bunch of people united by the 'right' cause... in reality a whole bunch of people with nothing better to do and whole bunch of personal issues to get out and a target they can take it out on.



It's the personal issues I want to talk about.



> ..Huh?  please explain.. ?  How do these have nothing to do with winning or losing?



'Winning' a war isn't about the stated objectives.. but about the achievement of the specific agenda's that went into motivating that war.

1) WMD's were not the motive... they were a _justification_. It was a lie. Big deal. They would have just found another justification.

2) The electorate did not have enough information to make a full judgement. The mistake was giving them a lie as justification to gain support.

3) There was insufficient exit strategy.. but that means little in real terms.. since war is fluid and anything can happen.

4) This is a by product of almost any war that deposes a leadership.

5) If you believe in war.. you believe in the spilling of blood. This is not an indication of success or failure.

6) _In the short term_.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> better that people take their anger and hatred out on a target like blair than go and beat up an old lady or something.



It's funny you should say that.. because the post I just quoted continued:



Kizmet said:


> In that respect it's far better that you go along and dent your le creuset saucepan than stay home and hit your spouse, I guess.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> It's the personal issues I want to talk about.



My personal issue is with Tony Blair.   You'd rather I sat on an internet board and talked about my issues than take them to the face of the person who's caused them? 



> 'Winning' a war isn't about the stated objectives.. but about the achievement of the specific agenda's that went into motivating that war.



Last time I checked we were supposed to be living in a democratic country.  I believe in freedom of the individual, freedom of the press, and freedom of information.  All of those were denied to us by this government under Tony Blair.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> My personal issue is with Tony Blair.   You'd rather I sat on an internet board and talked about my issues than take them to the face of the person who's caused them?



Did he even notice _your_ personal issues?

At least this way _someone_ might actually care.

By the way - you seem to have missed my point. As you so clearly stated earlier - "At this moment in time, I don't care. He was soley in charge of this country."

Which leads me to believe that Blair is the target of your issues.. but not the cause.



> Last time I checked we were supposed to be living in a democratic country.  I believe in freedom of the individual, freedom of the press, and freedom of information.  All of those were denied to us by this government under Tony Blair.



I'm not sure what's that meant to mean or how it even comes close to addressing what I said.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Did he even notice _your_ personal issues?
> 
> At least this way _someone_ might actually care.



I would think he did notice given that he had to be protected from the baying mob.  The media certainly noticed. 

Personally, I'd like to beat him with a big stick with rusty nails poking out of it so I think the whole event was really quite restrained.

And I'm sure he cares.  It means he's less likely to be asked to give speeches 'cause of the added police protection costs.



> I'm not sure what's that meant to mean or how it even comes close to addressing what I said.



You seem to be suggesting that it's the government's right to go to war without the support of the public and that we shouldn't blame them if that's what they decide to do.  I'm suggesting that is no way to behave in a democracy and that Tony Blair knows this.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not sure what's that meant to mean or how it even comes close to addressing what I said.



As you have already been told it's not about you.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> As you have already been told it's not about you.



No. I'm just the guy trying to find out what it's _really_ about.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I would think he did notice given that he had to be protected from the baying mob.  The media certainly noticed.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to beat him with a big stick with rusty nails poking out of it so I think the whole event was really quite restrained.



So you'd like to beat him with a rusty stick even though you don't care what responsibility he actually holds for the decisions that upset you?

And then you wonder why I question you so closely?



> You seem to be suggesting that it's the government's right to go to war without the support of the public and that we shouldn't blame them if that's what they decide to do.  I'm suggesting that is no way to behave in a democracy and that Tony Blair knows this.



I'm suggesting there's more to this issue than finding someone to blame.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> So you'd like to beat him with a rusty stick even though you don't care what responsibility he actually holds for the decisions that upset you?



You're very good at quoting out of context aren't you.  Yes, I do care what responsibility he holds.  I don't care that he may well have not acted alone at this moment in time.  You are questioning me/others about an intention to Tony Blair.  So at this moment in time, let's keep it about Tony only shall we?

Would you like to try answering my point again?


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No. I'm just the guy trying to find out what it's _really_ about.



no your not, I've read this thread from start to finish and all your posts have been about what you think.

and that has changed from post to post and sometimes even in the same post

like here



> Then you should work it out or not bother - instead of wasting both our times.
> 
> My position is clear.. I personally don't like 'nice day out' politics.
> 
> ...


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I'm suggesting there's more to this issue than finding someone to blame.



like...  the issue of trying to keep Tony Blair off of the world stage?  Or the issue that he's trying to conflate religion and politics?  Or that he's cashed in on democracy?

What issue are you thinking of?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> You're very good at quoting out of context aren't you.  Yes, I do care what responsibility he holds.  I don't care that he may well have not acted alone at this moment in time.  You are questioning me/others about an intention to Tony Blair.  So at this moment in time, let's keep it about Tony only shall we?



No. Then the discussion is over. Because it's not just about Tony.. and I think it's childish to treat it like it is.

My whole point has been that it's negative to target a figurehead of hate.

That's why I have continually questioned you to take you beyond this simplistic imagery. You make a bold action you must be prepared to defend that action against questioning.

Otherwise stay at home.



> Would you like to try answering my point again?



Which particular one?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You make a bold action you must be prepared to defend that action against questioning.
> 
> Otherwise stay at home.



lolzah!  Don't you think that's what we were shouting at Blair!?!?  No, of course not - you stayed at home.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> So you'd like to beat him with a rusty stick even though you don't care what responsibility he actually holds for the decisions that upset you?
> 
> And then you wonder why I question you so closely?
> 
> ...



Tony Blair took the decision to join up in the illegal war in Iraq.

The buck stops there, the problems in Iraq will not be solved by people who ignore the problem.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Which particular one?



>>>




			
				Kizmet  said:
			
		

> Did he even notice your personal issues?
> 
> At least this way someone might actually care.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> no your not, I've read this thread from start to finish and all your posts have been about what you think.



Should they, then, be about what YOU think?

This has been a wide ranging discussion.. you can't drag posts out of context.



> and that has changed from post to post and sometimes even in the same post
> 
> like here



Where's the inconsistancy?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> lolzah!  Don't you think that's what we were shouting at Blair!?!?  No, of course not - you stayed at home.



lolzah... do you begin to see the hypocrisy, now?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> lolzah... do you begin to see the hypocrisy, now?



wtf???? I can defend myself.  And will, at great lengths.  When will Tony?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> >>>



Was that meant to be a point?

I didn't realise, sorry.

He noticed the mob.. he didn't notice you. That's how mobs work. That's why I think they're dangerous.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Should they, then, be about what YOU think?
> 
> This has been a wide ranging discussion.. you can't drag posts out of context.
> 
> ...



you don't like NDO politics, fair enough.

what type of politics do you like against an oppressor.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> wtf???? I can defend myself.  And will, at great lengths.  When will Tony?



He ain't here.

And you haven't done a great job of it, to be fair.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> Tony Blair took the decision to join up in the illegal war in Iraq.



Why?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> He ain't here.



Were you in the 'special' class?  Cause you're seriously in need of help.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Why?



doh, I dunno, why don't you tell me......


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Were you in the 'special' class?  Cause you're seriously in need of help.



Remember what I said about thinking things through?

Try it... you might like it. 

I said he ain't here.. meaning that you are the one I am questioning.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> doh, I dunno, why don't you tell me......



Because you made the statement.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> And you haven't done a great job of it, to be fair.



Feck off.  Innocent till proven guilty doesn't apply to Prime Ministers.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

*loving the double standards....*


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I said he ain't here.. meaning that you are the one I am questioning.



Why don't you try questioning Tony Blair?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Why don't you try questioning Tony Blair?



Because... He ain't here.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> *loving the double standards....*



laughing at the way you think hyperbole is constructive


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Because... He ain't here.



and?  he's somewhere isn't he..? oh dear, you're still being 'special'


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

I bet he's not half as good at avoiding questions as you are.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Because you made the statement.



circular arguing, nice.

don't you know the reason or have you been asleep?

it seems everyone else in the country does.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I bet he's not half as good at avoiding questions as you are.



but you're the master....


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

I'm not the one making bold declarations of hatred.

I've nothing to defend.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2008)

Is Kismet going for the self absorbed argumentative pillock of the month award or something?

Why the bleeding hell is wrong with people showing their displeasure at an ex-pm who took the country into an unjustified war against the majority of the country's wishes? Especially when he now wants to profit from his profile and piously moralise to others. How awful that there's dissent. And in a public place too. 

Yes, I know Kismet thinks he has a smartarse theoretical point that makes his sneeringly dismissive approach acceptable, but it appears to be so self absorbed and rectum bound that it only makes sense to proctologists.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not the one making bold declarations of hatred.
> 
> I've nothing to defend.



yes you have, your fucking integrity for a start, you have had no argument from the start, just your fucking narcissism.

you want to get some help.

there is no where on this thread that I have express hatred


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> circular arguing, nice.



No mate. It's not circular arguing... you made a statement.

And I asked you a question.

You see.. to me... you can only justifiably hate a person if you are sure you would not have acted the same in their position.

So.. by showing you understand their position - it gives a validity to your hatred.

And whetever you do.... never align yourself with the 'majority is right' viewpoint.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

tarannau said:


> Yes, I know Kismet thinks he has a smartarse theoretical point that makes his sneeringly dismissive approach acceptable, but it appears to be so self absorbed and rectum bound that it only makes sense to proctologists.




This is the 2cnd or third thread I've come across him spouting garbage and wrecking.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No mate. It's not circular arguing... you made a statement.
> 
> And I asked you a question.
> 
> ...



I told you the answer, you didn't like it .....or as you are so cleverly insinuated you know more than me, well I've already asked, pray tell.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I bet he's not half as good at avoiding questions as you are.



How about you have a go at this one?
>>




			
				Kizmet said:
			
		

> I'm suggesting there's more to this issue than finding someone to blame.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

tarannau said:


> Is Kismet going for the self absorbed argumentative pillock of the month award or something?
> 
> Why the bleeding hell is wrong with people showing their displeasure at an ex-pm who took the country into an unjustified war against the majority of the country's wishes? Especially when he now wants to profit from his profile and piously moralise to others. How awful that there's dissent. And in a public place too.



Fucking funny... here you are talking about how laudable dissent is.

And yet.. I'm dissenting against YOU and you call it argumentative?

Dude.. if you were made out of hypocrisy it still wouldn't be enough to explain it!


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> I told you the answer, you didn't like it .....or as you are so cleverly insinuated you know more than me, well I've already asked, pray tell.



Sorry.. when did you tell me the answer to why Tony Blair took us into a illegal war?


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No mate. It's not circular arguing... you made a statement.
> 
> And I asked you a question.
> 
> ...



and you are so far from the point it's laughable, go join the fucking jesuits if you want to psuedopreach to me then I can tell you to fuck off with pleasure.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> yes you have, your fucking integrity for a start, you have had no argument from the start, just your fucking narcissism.
> 
> you want to get some help.



Integrity?

The day I join a baying mob is the day I lose my integrity.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Sorry.. when did you tell me the answer to why Tony Blair took us into a illegal war?



what the fuck are you on about?

he told us about 45mins and WMD's which were lies. The real reason for the war is immaterial here.

now I know you already know this you narcissistic fool.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Integrity?
> 
> The day I join a baying mob is the day I lose my integrity.



who are you lumping in with a baying mob, I hope not me which you are trying to imply.

that would be you having no integrity.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> what the fuck are you on about?
> 
> he told us about 45mins and WMD's which were lies. The real reason for the war is immaterial here.
> 
> now I know you already know this you narcissistic fool.



Exactly. So think it through further.. is the real reason for the war immaterial?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Integrity?
> 
> The day I join a baying mob is the day I lose my integrity.



One doesn't join a baying mob, one becomes a baying mob.  Though perhaps one needs to have integrity to know the difference.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> who are you lumping in with a baying mob, I hope not me which you are trying to imply.
> 
> that would be you having no integrity.



Did you go? Did you bay?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> One doesn't join a baying mob, one becomes a baying mob.  Though perhaps one needs to have integrity to know the difference.



Perhaps one needs to have been on the other side of one to understand there is no difference.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Perhaps one needs to have been on the other side of one to understand there is no difference.



Sounds like you're incapable of knowing what side you stand on.

Any chance of getting back to the point?




			
				Kizmet said:
			
		

> I'm suggesting there's more to this issue than finding someone to blame.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Exactly. So think it through further.. is the real reason for the war immaterial?



yes when the liar is setting himself up to be as humble as he is now, exposure a a cog if you will.

The WMD claim is what the majority hate him for, the lies.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> he told us about 45mins and WMD's which were lies. The real reason for the war is immaterial here.



As I said clearly above.. the 45 minutes and the WMD's were _justifications_ for the war. And they were lies. But so? If not that they would have found another justification.. because they _wanted_ to go to war

That is why the 'Why?' is so important.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Did you go? Did you bay?



it seems you assume I did....

whoever did go gets my support.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> The WMD claim is what the majority hate him for, the lies.



Exactly. And I think that's just plain crazy for a number of reasons.

Firstly - let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Secondly - the WMD claim was a _justification_.

Thirdly - name me a political leader who hasn't lied.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> it seems you assume I did....
> 
> whoever did go gets my support.



I assumed you did because of how vocal you are in support. And i think you posted some technical details that I assumed came from first hand experience.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> As I said clearly above.. the 45 minutes and the WMD's were _justifications_ for the war. And they were lies. But so? If not that they would have found another justification.. because they _wanted_ to go to war
> 
> That is why the 'Why?' is so important.



this isn't about the war, this is about expressing disgust for one that preaches peace and doesn't listen to the voters for whatever reason, a murderer and immoral person that seems to suffer from the same problem as yourself.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I assumed you did because of how vocal you are in support. And i think you posted some technical details that I assumed came from first hand experience.



well you think wrong, that's your problem, see a doctor.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Sounds like you're incapable of knowing what side you stand on.



Neither.



> Any chance of getting back to the point?



You want me to hate a man for that?

Are you serious?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> That is why the 'Why?' is so important.




But not important enough to challenge Tony on?

Tell us about your 'special' school Kizmet.  Were you asked to bend over a lot?  Cause you're truly fucked if you think that Tony doesnt deserve some extra attention.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> well you think wrong, that's your problem, see a doctor.



If I remember rightly, snadge.. we came to some sort of agreement a while ago about the closeness of our opinions.

Mine hasn't changed since then.

So why are we arguing?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You want me to hate a man for that?
> 
> Are you serious?



No, I don't want you to hate him.  Where did I say that?

What I want is to pin him into a corner and have a friendly conversation - which somehow I don't think I'd get without the aid of some rusty nails.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> this isn't about the war, this is about expressing disgust for one that preaches peace and doesn't listen to the voters for whatever reason, a murderer and immoral person that seems to suffer from the same problem as yourself.



'for whatever reason' is the bit that lets the whole sentence down.

Because to people like me 'special' people according to citydreams.. the reasons for everything are important.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> If I remember rightly, snadge.. we came to some sort of agreement a while ago about the closeness of our opinions.
> 
> Mine hasn't changed since then.
> 
> So why are we arguing?



my opinions are no where near yours, please point that out.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Third attempt.
Are you going to answer the question?




			
				kizmet said:
			
		

> I'm suggesting there's more to this issue than finding someone to blame.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> But not important enough to challenge Tony on?
> 
> Tell us about your 'special' school Kizmet.  Were you asked to bend over a lot?  Cause you're truly fucked if you think that Tony doesnt deserve some extra attention.



You went, you did your challenging, well done.

Now I'm asking you about it.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Third attempt.
> Are you going to answer the question?



When did this turn round from me suggesting you are avoiding questions to you reposting the same question over and over?

Do you think people won't notice that it's a tactic to avoid answering questions yourself?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> my opinions are no where near yours, please point that out.



No. You're right.. it was someone else I had in mind. Co-op - top of page 6.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> 'for whatever reason' is the bit that lets the whole sentence down.
> 
> Because to people like me 'special' people according to citydreams.. the reasons for everything are important.



pick your subject to fit whatever reason.

Afghanistan,
Europe,
Iraq war,
I.D. card scheme,
NHS.
Faith schools.

want any more whatever reasons.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> When did this turn round from me suggesting you are avoiding questions to you reposting the same question over and over?



When you claimed that: "I'm suggesting there's more to this issue than finding someone to blame." 

What issue are you thinking of?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> pick your subject to fit whatever reason.
> 
> Afghanistan,
> Europe,
> ...



So what you're esssentially saying is the Blair doesn't think the way you do and that's a reason to hate him.

Ok.


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No. You're right.. it was someone else I had in mind. Co-op - top of page 6.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> When you claimed that: "I'm suggesting there's more to this issue than finding someone to blame."
> 
> What issue are you thinking of?



The issue of your anger.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


>



Sorry if you all sound the same.... maybe try and come up with something other than insults?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> The issue of your anger.



My anger is very firmly under control.  So how is it at issue?  Because I'm angry?  Are you suggesting it's unjustified?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> My anger is very firmly under control.  So how is it at issue?  Because I'm angry?  Are you suggesting it's unjustified?



If you look back over the thread you'll see exactly why I'm questioning your anger.

It's intrinsic to my initial argument...


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> If you look back over the thread you'll see exactly why I'm questioning your anger.
> 
> It's intrinsic to my initial argument...



And my anger is intrinsic to finding someone to blame.  So how can the issue be more than that?


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> So what you're esssentially saying is the Blair doesn't think the way you do and that's a reason to hate him.
> 
> Ok.



could you please point out this hate thing that I seem to have.

it is in your head you delusionist...


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> could you please point out this hate thing that I seem to have.



If you don't have any anger or hatred toward Blair then this argument doesn't really apply to you, does it?


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> If you don't have any anger or hatred toward Blair then this argument doesn't really apply to you, does it?



yes it does, hate doesn't come into it, it seems to be you that is injecting hate.

I think Blair is a snivelling toady but I don't hate him, I want to see him taken to task for his law breaking not allowed a platform to snivel on, massaging his narcissistic ego.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> And my anger is intrinsic to finding someone to blame.  So how can the issue be more than that?



Because from another point of view that would be called 'scapegoating'.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> yes it does, hate doesn't come into it, it seems to be you that is injecting hate.



Whatever.



> I think Blair is a snivelling toady but I don't hate him, I want to see him taken to task for his law breaking not allowed a platform to snivel on, massaging his narcissistic ego.



Yet others disagree enough to give him that platform. What do they know or don't they know that YOU do?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Because from another point of view that would be called 'scapegoating'.



But then that point of view would be wrong.  Scapegoating is when you use someone as an excuse for your own failures...
kind of like you using this thread for your failure to challenge Tony over the deaths of 1million, and rising, civilians.
How very fucking noble of you.
Can I go back to calling you a twat now?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Yet others disagree enough to give him that platform. What do they know or don't they know that YOU do?



Who said they disagree?  They may simply be using him to gain attention to their cause.


----------



## Jonti (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> and you are so far from the point it's laughable, go join the fucking jesuits if you want to psuedopreach to me then I can tell you to fuck off with pleasure.


Too late; I think Prem Rawat got there first 

Aaanyway, seems that lot have managed to confuse wikipedia. theRegister mentions the matter...


> One of the site’s leading administrators bears an extreme conflict of interest, but you can’t expose him from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. He created the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.
> 
> This administrator, Jossi Fresco, is a longtime student of Prem Rawat - formerly Guru Maharaj Ji - the India-born spiritual leader who styled himself as the "Perfect Master" and fostered a worldwide religious movement encouraging followers to call him "Lord of the Universe."



more here folks!.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> But then that point of view would be wrong.  Scapegoating is when you use someone as an excuse for your own failures...
> kind of like you using this thread for your failure to challenge Tony over the deaths of 1million, and rising, civilians.
> How very fucking noble of you.
> Can I go back to calling you a twat now?



Do what you like.

Scapegoating is not about excuses for your own failures at all. You're an idiot to think so.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Too late; I think Prem Rawat got there first
> 
> Aaanyway, seems that lot have managed to confuse wikipedia. theRegister mentions the matter...
> 
> ...



I thought we discussed your underlying racism elsewhere?


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Who said they disagree?  They may simply be using him to gain attention to their cause.



Rather than hitting him with a stick, you mean?


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Rather than hitting him with a stick, you mean?



I'd only hit him if he used the words "national intelligence"


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Scapegoating is not about excuses for your own failures at all. You're an idiot to think so.



Er, dictionary definition says it is:
1. One that is made to bear the blame of others.
2. Bible A live goat over whose head Aaron confessed all the sins of the children of Israel on the Day of Atonement. The goat, symbolically bearing their sins, was then sent into the wilderness.
tr.v. scape·goat·ed, scape·goat·ing, scape·goats 
To make a scapegoat of.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=scapegoat


----------



## snadge (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Whatever.



whatever? you fucking child, you introduced hate you pious cunt.



Kizmet said:


> others disagree enough to give him that platform. What do they know or don't they know that YOU do?



what are you on about now? more egotistical wittering.


I'm done, it's like debating with a fool, you actually have nothing to add of substance.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

snadge said:
			
		

> The WMD claim is what the majority hate him for, the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fuck me, he didn't lie about whether he liked his mum's cooking.  He lied about starting a war.  In our names.

And I can't believe you're taking advice from Christ.  He's responsible for more deaths than Blair.


----------



## citydreams (Apr 14, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Was that meant to be a point?
> 
> I didn't realise, sorry.
> 
> He noticed the mob.. he didn't notice you. That's how mobs work. That's why I think they're dangerous.



Depends who's in the mob.  

I've seen enough to know that an out of contol mob is a dangerous thing.  I was almost stampeded by a tube load of football supporters going for a riot.

But a group of committed individuals who are well reasoned and capable of self-restraint is a much grander thing. 

He might not have noticed me personally.  But then, maybe that's because there was only a few hundred people there instead of several thousand.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 15, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Er, dictionary definition says it is:
> 1. One that is made to bear the blame of others.



Exactly.

The blame of others.. not limited to 'your own failures'.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 15, 2008)

snadge said:


> whatever? you fucking child, you introduced hate you pious cunt.



You deserve no more. Do your research.



> what are you on about now? more egotistical wittering.



You understand little but you swear a lot.

Coincidence? I think not.



> I'm done, it's like debating with a fool, you actually have nothing to add of substance.



I couldn't even remember your name.. that should tell you how much YOU added.

C'ya.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 15, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Depends who's in the mob.
> 
> I've seen enough to know that an out of contol mob is a dangerous thing.  I was almost stampeded by a tube load of football supporters going for a riot.



Being Asian and living a) near Wembley and then b) in Tower Hamlets I will tell you that there is only one thing an out of control mob has in common with any other.

And that is anger.



> But a group of committed individuals who are well reasoned and capable of self-restraint is a much grander thing.



This is not a mob.

And it is not organised by throwing in a couple of street parties.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 15, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Fuck me, he didn't lie about whether he liked his mum's cooking.  He lied about starting a war.  In our names.



You misunderstand the quote.... he was in a positon to lie about starting a war.. you may never be in position to lie about more than your mum's cooking.



> And I can't believe you're taking advice from Christ.  He's responsible for more deaths than Blair.



Good advice is good advice - wherever it comes from.

This is part of the problem, I feel. The tendency you seem to have to worry about the messenger more than the message.


----------



## snadge (Apr 15, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You deserve no more. Do your research.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have done plenty of research mate, your ego seems to get in the way of debate.

whatever my reasons for supporting this demonstration, hate isn't one of them, as has explained by several attendees as well.

You seem to imply that everyone that attended was doing so through hate, this has been explained to you over and over again that it is not the case.

but then this isn't about blair is it to you, it's about you, again!

As I have already said get some help, the world does not revolve around you and thank fuck you are not in a position that it does.


----------



## Kizmet (Apr 15, 2008)

snadge said:


> I have done plenty of research mate, your ego seems to get in the way of debate.
> 
> whatever my reasons for supporting this demonstration, hate isn't one of them, as has explained by several attendees as well.
> 
> You seem to imply that everyone that attended was doing so through hate, this has been explained to you over and over again that it is not the case.


 
So.. somehow, with all your sterling research skills you managed to miss this:



Kizmet said:


> You see.. while people are there to have a great time.. all's good.
> 
> It's when people start going to express hatred and anger that I start to get nervous.
> 
> ...


 
We were talking about anger and hatred... but that's cool... you just carry _implying_ what I mean without actually bothering to read it.



> but then this isn't about blair is it to you, it's about you, again!
> 
> As I have already said get some help, the world does not revolve around you and thank fuck you are not in a position that it does.


 
You keep saying this as though it actually _means_ something... you are aware that it's gibberish, aren't you?


----------

