From: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5154714.stm>

'Tanweer says in a Yorkshire accent on the film that attacks will
continue "until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq".'


I wonder if phagBlair will now pull his head out of the sand and stop
insisting that our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have no bearing on
UK terrrist attacks.

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:10:56 +0100, bof <nothingread>
wrote the following to uk.misc:

>
> From: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5154714.stm>
>
> 'Tanweer says in a Yorkshire accent on the film that attacks will
> continue "until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq".'
>> I wonder if phagBlair will now pull his head out of the sand and stop
> insisting that our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have no bearing on
> UK terrrist attacks.

Not a chance. I get the impression from his "I *am* right. I *must* be
right" attitude that he's in denial, which makes him even less likely to
admit to a mistake.

mh.

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:10:56 +0100, bof <nothingread> wrote:

>I wonder if phagBlair will now pull his head out of the sand and stop
>insisting that our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have no bearing on
>UK terrrist attacks.

On past experience, I'd say, No.

After all, god has already judged him to have been right.

In uk.misc on Thu, 6 Jul 2006, bof <nothingread> wrote :
>
>From: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5154714.stm>
>
>'Tanweer says in a Yorkshire accent on the film that attacks will
>continue "until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq".'
>
>I wonder if phagBlair will now pull his head out of the sand and stop
>insisting that our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have no bearing on
>UK terrrist attacks.

Even if there is a connection, the worst thing you can do is appease
them - when has that *ever* stopped them? It just makes them bolder, as
they believe we won't protect ourselves.

On the Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:10:56 +0100, bof <nothingread>
wrote:

>I wonder if phagBlair will now pull his head out of the sand and stop
>insisting that our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have no bearing on
>UK terrrist attacks.

They will find another excuse.
-------------------------------
Enter the Halls of Culinary Heaven:

[url down]

A veritable treasure trove.
-------------------------------

In message <o1lqa25ucq4ce5h79ed4v679e1p6nq7cs7>, Frank
<haggis-fan> writes
>On the Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:10:56 +0100, bof <nothingread>
>wrote:
>
>>I wonder if phagBlair will now pull his head out of the sand and stop
>>insisting that our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have no bearing on
>>UK terrrist attacks.
>
>They will find another excuse.

There may well be other reasons, but Blair's denial that our invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq had no impact on UK terrorism is either
head-in-the-sand singing la la la I can't hear you, or, and I suspect
more likely, he's simply not prepared to publicly admit that belief for
fear of negative PR/spin/publicity reasons; Blair's clearly not stupid,
though misguided he may well be.

In message <qerABvLtQUrEFw3n>, Paul Hyett
<pah> writes
>In uk.misc on Thu, 6 Jul 2006, bof <nothingread> wrote :
>>
>>From: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5154714.stm>
>>
>>'Tanweer says in a Yorkshire accent on the film that attacks will
>>continue "until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq".'
>>
>>I wonder if phagBlair will now pull his head out of the sand and stop
>>insisting that our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have no bearing on
>>UK terrrist attacks.
>
>Even if there is a connection, the worst thing you can do is appease
>them - when has that *ever* stopped them? It just makes them bolder, as
>they believe we won't protect ourselves.

I'm didn't suggest there should be any form of appeasement, I suggested
that Blair's denial of any connection between our invasion of
Afghanistan and Iraq and UK terrorism was either head in the sand stuff,
or as I suspect more likely, a desire on his part to avoid his policies
being labelled as increasing the likelihood of UK terrorism, and getting
him bad PR.

Paul Hyett pahlid wrote in
<qerABvLtQUrEFw3n>:
> In uk.misc on Thu, 6 Jul 2006, bof <nothingread> wrote :
>
> Even if there is a connection, the worst thing you can do is appease
> them - when has that *ever* stopped them? It just makes them bolder, as
> they believe we won't protect ourselves.
>

There's a difference between denying responsibility and offering
appeasement. The problem with the likes of Blair, and far too many others
in politics, is that they believe that if they state a lie often enough it
becomes the truth. They then start to believe their own propaganda and end
up making disastrous decisions that are often based on their own
misrepresentations being mistaken for facts.

The problem is that we have a Parliament full of lawyers. They are taught
that if you can construct a convincing logical argument then you are right
even if nobody challenges your premises. In politics that allows truth to
be bullied completely out of sight. So you get situations where even to
vaguely hint at real solutions to real problems will get you labelled as a
member of a lunatic fringe, whereas you can get away with any old bullshit
provided it fits the orthodoxy better than it fits the facts.

We should ban ANYONE with a law degree (unless they also have a science
degree) from being an MP. Every national newspaper and every broadcast
news service should be forced by law to have fifty percent of it's staff
at all levels be people with a decent science education.

We need to stop politics being about how well propaganda can be
manipulated, and start making it have something to do with Planet Earth.

In message <MPG.1f17824f9a82c5bb989dae>, Eric Jarvis
<eric> writes

>The problem with the likes of Blair, and far too many others
>in politics, is that they believe that if they state a lie often enough it
>becomes the truth.

Good stuff

>They then start to believe their own propaganda

I think it's more to do getting away with their own propaganda because
other people believe it. It's like walking a tightrope, so long as they
don't falter, people will believe them, if they stumble then they are
seen to be vincible (or what ever the word is) and doomed.


> and end
>up making disastrous decisions that are often based on their own
>misrepresentations being mistaken for facts.
>
>The problem is that we have a Parliament full of lawyers. They are taught
>that if you can construct a convincing logical argument then you are right
>even if nobody challenges your premises. In politics that allows truth to
>be bullied completely out of sight. So you get situations where even to
>vaguely hint at real solutions to real problems will get you labelled as a
>member of a lunatic fringe, whereas you can get away with any old bullshit
>provided it fits the orthodoxy better than it fits the facts.
>
>We should ban ANYONE with a law degree (unless they also have a science
>degree) from being an MP. Every national newspaper and every broadcast
>news service should be forced by law to have fifty percent of it's staff
>at all levels be people with a decent science education.
>
>We need to stop politics being about how well propaganda can be
>manipulated, and start making it have something to do with Planet Earth.

This man, he speak the truth.