Perhaps he feels reinvigorated by the discovery that he has an acolyte in Bomber Dave.

i think its termed as being ‘pyschologically flawed’.
.
it is about wealth and power and his belief that he is on gods work.
.
he’s not interested in what you think or what ordinary joe thinks of him, because his constituency is elsewhere and they pay well.

“Perhaps he feels reinvigorated by the discovery that he has an acolyte in Bomber Dave.”
.
.
weird thing about dave is that he is as delusional as blair in that he actually believes that people cant see through his puffery and ad-speak.

“weird thing about dave is that he is as delusional as blair in that he actually believes that people cant see through his puffery and ad-speak”
.
I’m afraid the evidence supports his view. There are no barricades on my street.

I have been reading recently about psychopaths , they number about one in a hundred of the population but in politics and the high echelons of business the proportion is higher. The classic symptom are.
High opinion of ones self importance
Compulsive lying to achieve ones goals
No empathy for others
A flagrant disregard for ones self or others safety
Compulsive risk taking
Over concerned with others opinion of self

Does any of this sound familiar?
Contrary to popular believe psychopaths live amongst us undetected and using us to further their ends ruthlessly using us and disregarding us. I am not a shrink but I am sure he needs one !

“We are a long way from getting out of this,” he says. The former prime minister adds: “The threat is still from the same ideology and the same narrative which is based on a perverted view of religion and which regards cultures and faiths as in fundamental conflict with each other.”
.
Blair is kind of loosely correct on this one I reckon, he’s just got the actors mixed up as usual…

A major problem with people like Bliar, Cameron and their ilk, as I see it, is that – part from their obvious crimes – they actually subvert morality. Not just because of their failures and offences, but because they DON’T CARE what the rest of us think. Possibly a definition of psychopathy, but one doesn’t need to be a psychopath to be drawn to the attractions of such amorality.

It’s a common cry of the Daily Fail generation that young people have ‘lost respect’. Well my late Dad always held that respect could never be demanded – only earned.

Who on earth can young people and children look up to now? All around them, they see bent politicians – getting away with it. Bent coppers – getting away with it. Bent financiers – getting away with it. Bent multi-millionaire media moguls – getting away with it. They only have to appear in court as a witness let alone offender to see that the judiciary now have little to do with justice. And via the internet they see even war and torture first denied then actually defended.

Most children – despite our grumbles – are neither blind nor stupid. And, unless they have uncommonly dedicated parents, have very little to look to in the way of example. How can they be blamed for assuming morality is defined by what you can get away with? When the strongest figures in society hold the weak and vulnerable in open contempt – why shouldn’t they?

Hi,

And the world that Bliar has wrought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14851811 – deconstruct that report!

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/04/speech/index.html

How many will remember the political culture of the 90′s as the current neocon anti-islamic/”radical”/”extremist” (whatever that is) ideology becomes assimilated and all our children (and the rest of society) are indoctrinated to believe in the new faith.

Kind regards,

MN

TB is a psychopath, no doubt about it…

Why have we put Belhadj in charge of the Libyan army if we don’t like Islamic extremism? 8 million kilos of explosives is a lot to spend just to put an Islamic extremist in power. Shows how much we hope to gain from Obama’s new Africa enterprise. Does Obama really think that Africa will be lulled into security by having an Islamic extremist as a new neighbour. This is really dirty politics, which of course Blair specialises in.

What gets me most about Blair is that he talks about how the reason a lot of Iraqis and Afghans were (and are) fighting British and American forces was ‘extreme ideology’.

There was a British reporter in Libya the other week telling how he was in Baghdad when Saddam was overthrown too – and Iraqis kept coming up to him to tell him how they loved Americans and Americans were the greatest people in the world. Two weeks later some of the same Iraqis were saying very different things. One told him that the Americans had killed his uncle and his cousin and now he would kill every American he could kill.

It’s not ideology that turns people against us Blair, it’s killing peoples’ family and friends and running Saddam Hussein style death and torture squads against them that turns them against you.

Blair never has to learn from his mistakes though, because it’s other peoples’ husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, cousins and friends who get killed or tortured because of him, while he gets paid to make speeches and sell books providing us with his supposed accumulated wisdom on how the problem is other peoples extreme ideologies that are out of touch with the reality of British and American benevolence.

“TB is a psychopath, no doubt about it…”
.
Ok. Mine is a dry white wine (large). Next topic. And so we go on.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LDdyafsR7g

I don’t like Tony Blair and I have condemned his role in the launch of the unjust and cruel war on Iraq. But to account for his behavior in terms of psychopathology is simply nuts. Tony Blair is an imperialist, as was spelled out long ago by his foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper. Specifically, he is for the New World Order, which has a long and history and some logic behind it. I have spelled out some details here.

Reliable estimates put the “excess deaths” in Iraq alone at well over 1 million as of 2006. Since then it has gone right on. Then there were the 500,000 children whose deaths Madeleine Albright thought were a reasonable price to pay for something or other. That’s before we even think about Afghanistan and Lebanon and Libya and Somalia and Pakistan… Iran is apparently next.

The number of deaths usually associated with the Holocaust is 6 million. How come nobody ever seems to notice that we and our allies have already chalked up between a quarter a a third of that number – and why don’t the deaths of brown Muslim people in Asia or Africa seem to count for anything? Can it be that civlized, liberla British and American people in the 21st century think of Asians and Africans (if they think of them at all) in very much the same way as the Nazis thought of Jews?

The sole purpose of Zionist Blair’s rhetoric against Islamic extremism is to conceal the growing cracks exposing the fact that Islamic extremism is being used as a tool firstly against Islam because sensible people run away from extremism and secondly as a front for unacceptable colonialism. The doors of Africa, Asia and the Middle East are closed to the US and they utilise Islamic extremists not to fight proxy wars but to legitimise the colonial campaign, because funnily enough the majority of the world still respects Islam.

The appointment of Belhaj as military commander in Libya is the first time that I’m aware of that the US has openly handed power to an Islamic extremist. China, for all its expenditure in Africa, is still tainted with colonialism, but will Africa buy into militant Islam as an untainted flag of hope? They’ve been conned before many times. We gave them the bible and took their land. I have friends who engaged in this enourmous project even today.

Militant Islam will capture the parts the US missionaries and slush funds cannot reach. Essentially they are the same, a bunch of deceiving, mineral grabbing, enslaving colonialists. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose again and again and again and again.

I couldn’t agree more with you, Jack. You see a lot of people making similar points on the Web and even in the conventional media.

One of the worst aspects, IMHO, is that if you devote yourself for 20 years to bringing up kind, thoughtful, polite, civilised, educated children, when they leave the nest you discover to your horror that you have simply hung millstones round their necks. How can they hope to compete with the swarms of people who lack morals, scruples, and consciences?

The socialist idea that you can civilise children from “disadvantaged” backgrounds by putting them in schools with “nicely brought up” middle class children is hopelessly wrong. All that happens is that the middle class children get mocked, beaten up, and gradually robbed of their idealism and aspirations. Of course there are exceptions, but that’s the overall trend. Indeed, the very phrase “nicely brought up” has become one that can only be uttered self-consciously and within those “ironical” quotations marks.

I wouldn’t call Blair a psychopath. He’s a sociopath. And hree’s the link that proves it.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

i.e. “here’s the link”. Of course he may not fit every category, but he fits most.

“The number of deaths usually associated with the Holocaust is 6 million. How come nobody ever seems to notice that we and our allies have already chalked up between a quarter a a third of that number – and why don’t the deaths of brown Muslim people in Asia or Africa seem to count for anything? Can it be that civlized, liberla British and American people in the 21st century think of Asians and Africans (if they think of them at all) in very much the same way as the Nazis thought of Jews?”
*
People pay no more attention to the 40 to 60 million white Christians who died during WW2, or the 6 or 8 million white Christian Ukranians who were murdered by Stalin, than they do to a million dead Iraqis. Actually, the dead Iraqis probably get more attention.
*
And there was nothing racist about the war on Iraq. They just wouldn’t join the New World Order. The same mass killing and chaos would happen in any white country that opted for national sovereignty. Russia, actually, could well be targeted by the NWO eventually. But at present they are too well armed and their position is ambivalent. They may come on side without a fight. But if necessary, we will see that any number of dead Russians (and Europeans and Americans for that matter) will be a price worth paying for global empire.

Canspeccy, I didn’t suggest there was anything racist about the killings in Iraq – just about the failure to care about them. (Although have you heard any recordings or accounts of the language used by American and British soldiers about “hajjis”, “sand rats”, etc.? Or the often-expressed view that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are “shitholes” (a favourite expression with Americans).

The people who died in WW2 are constantly being remembered and memorialised – largely in books and movies and TV shows. Admittedly some get a lot more attention than others. But that’s a different issue, as the British and Americans were fighting against aggressive enemies who started the war. The Americans actually stayed neutral until the dictatorships declared war on the USA, although you don’t hear that mentioned much nowadays.

As for Stalin’s victims, Western governments were reluctant to have the truth come out because of that old factor – their precious “credibility”. Remember, Roosevelt and Churchill built up good ol’ Uncle Joe Stalin as our staunch friend and ally, so it took a while before he could be depicted as a villain of blackest hue.

I think the explanation is simple. He doesn’t want war for its own sake. It’s just that if there are other wars, it helps to justify his war. He can say he just did what others have done since. And, more worryingly, it helps him justify it to himself.

‘Suppose, for example, that the attack had gone as far as bombing the White House, killing the president, imposing a brutal military dictatorship that killed thousands and tortured tens of thousands while establishing an international terror centre that helped impose similar torture-and-terror states elsewhere and carried out an international assassination campaign; and as an extra fillip, brought in a team of economists — call them “the Kandahar boys” — who quickly drove the economy into one of the worst depressions in its history. That, plainly, would have been a lot worse than 9/11.
.

‘Unfortunately, it is not a thought experiment. It happened.
.
‘The only inaccuracy in this brief account is that the numbers should be multiplied by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, the appropriate measure. I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the US succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile …’
.
http://bit.ly/pHldlF

Blair’s arrogance is stunning – we ought to be inured to it and the general ullulations of naked imperialism by now, but it’s still shocking. And yes, he most definitely is not mad but very, very bad. Yet, as Vronsky astutely pointed out, there are no barricades down this way and no-one is burning down the City of London or Wall Street, let alone levitating the Pentagon. There is no organised oppositional mass political movement in the UK or the USA. The main UK political parties are all sold on the same aggressive imperialism and ideologically-driven monetarist economic system that typifies Tony Blair’s and David Cameon’s public presentation. So, in some ways, nothing will change.
.
In other ways, the global rise of China and India is chnaging/will continue to change things enormously.

Craig you are right of course. Why can’t we just let these regimes go on killing and terrorizing their people in peace? When the history of these regimes comes to be written I trust that tossers like you will stand on the side of those indicted for their appeasement and passivity. You remind me of the Webbs and Shaw in the thirties extolling the virtues of Stalin’s Soviet paradise. Idiot.

Its not just Blair, many hundreds if not thousands of people who knew the truth and still helped him to commit these terrible crimes against humanity have also lost their souls. They all can pay no greater price.

Eddie – can you point me to the part of Craig’s post where he sings the praises of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban perhaps? As far as i can see it’s not there. If we’d intervened against Saddam in the 1980s when he was gassing the Kurds as part of the Anfal genocide and ended it – or if we’d intervened at the end of the 1991 Gulf War to prevent the massacre of Shia rebels and civilians – and then pulled out as soon as Saddam was overthrown – that would have been legitimate.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have resulted in vastly more deaths than not invading, not bombing the entire countries.

You’re also standing on a shaky spot trying to claim Craig is a “useful idiot” while you’re backing ‘democratisation’ that actually involves running El Salvador style torture and death squads (‘police commandos’ and ‘counter terrorism units’ trained by US forces) using the same torture methods and execution of dissidents as Saddam did. Having elections does not make a democracy while anyone can be jailed, tortured or disappeared by government forces at any time.

See some American journalists on this
Peter Maass in the New York Times magazine
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html
Shane Bauer in The Nation (since ludicrously and unjustly arrested as an ‘American spy’ by the Iranian government)
http://www.thenation.com/article/iraqs-new-death-squad
and Amnesty International on the torture methods
http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=123

That is what Iranians can expect from any US led ‘democratisation’ – not American or European style democracy, but El Salvador and Iraq style death squads carrying out torture and killings of all critics and opponents on a scale that dwarfs what the Ayatollahs are doing (as they are a relatively established dictatorship, while the US backed puppet government would be a new one with less support among Iranians, especially after the killings started).

The Shah’s dictatorship, even when it was well established, was no more democratic than the Ayatollahs and ran the same secret police, torture, jail without fair trial, assassinations and disappearances

Psychopath? Sociopath? What’s wrong with old-fashioned conman? Blair isn’t really ill, or sick in the head, though it’s true he does appear to exhibit many of the classic traits of the sociopath, in the sense of him being willing to subvert and manipulate the normal “rules” for acceptable social interraction in order to “win” personal advantage over, and at the expense of others. But this is pretty normal, for people from his background, for example, Cameron.

The really great and successful conmen have the ability to convince themselves that what they are doing is right and proper, and then they appear so “straight” and sincere that convincing others becomes natural and second-nature to them. Blair’s talent is similar to mimicry in nature, where many insects have evolved so that they can mimic the behaviour patterns of other insects, usually their food, to such an extent that it is virtually impossible to see behind the mimics mask, until it’s too late. Blair successfully mimics honesty and sincerity, whilst he hides his cynicism.

But perhaps more importantly he represents the attitudes of powerful forces, or sections, of the ruling elite that have both Syria and Iran in their sights for more regime change. That Iran is cursed with having so much of our oil and gas under its sand, is a tragedy. They might have been better off without it, like the Libyans are about to learn.

The thing is, none of these attempted explanations (IMHO) get close to explaining the enigma of Blair. I wish they did. I don’t feel I need an explanation for Pol Pot or Stalin, I just think they were nuts. But I don’t think Blair is, and I don’t think you do. Even the psychopath route doesn’t quite cut it for me, it’s too glib to explain Blair.

I don’t think anyone can know exactly how Blair thinks for certain. The impression that i get is that he believes his own propaganda and is convinced that if so many influential people in government and academia and so many ordinary people agree with him, he must be right. Maybe that’s because, if he looked at what’s actually happened, the guilt would be just too much.

People can be very good at convincing themselves that whatever is easiest or the path of least resistance or the best for them personally must be what’s best for everyone – and if they get lots of other people telling them right that makes it even easier to believe.

So, Eddie, should we attack Israel for terrorising and oppressing the Palestinians? Or the USA, for terrorising and torturing thousands in the ‘black sites’ you support? Or indeed, the UK, for being complicit in all of that? Should we not call for regime chnage, since we are so concerned about the people being terrorised and oppressed and tortured? No? Why not? We don’t want to stand passively on the side of the oppressors, do we? Do you? You know, Eddie, I much prefer an honest, rabid imperialist. The regimes in Iran and Syria (and Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and Israel and Afghanistan, etc.) are shite. But cloaking greed in a concern for human rights (so let’s bomb, bomb, bomb!) simply won’t wash anymore. It’s a C19th thing, man. You’d need a waistcoat, sideboards and whiskers to pull that one off. Do you own some? Could we borrow some of your theatrical make-up?

but Tony robed himself in white and dipped himself in the River Jordan as godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch’s daughters – what’s not to like? It’s like a Cecil B Demille scenario – just need to book the choir.

@KWN
.
“none of these attempted explanations”
.
Do the attempted explanations matter? I had a schizophrenic mother (as regulars will already have guessed) who made everyone very miserable. Part of her knew what she was doing, but other parts of her didn’t. As we (her children) got older and calmer we all hoped that she would never fully understand what she had done to us because that knowledge would have destroyed her. Blair seems to me to be the same – willfully and helplessly cruel but somewhere aware that he is so, and equally aware that confronting that truth would break his mind. And he has a very little mind, much smaller than my mother’s.

Writeon, I agree to a good extent. Psychopath, sociopath, both are labels and I doubt any psychologists, or psychiatrists, believe totally in labels today, since we are all individuals and have our own character traits (inherited or learned) which reveal some of the aberrations which the fields of expertise ascribe to us. Neither do I have a medical background. But Blair appeared “straight” and “sincere” and “convincing”, so much so that I voted for him the first time he was elected (much to my regret) even though a very sensible conservative woman had almost convinced me that he was “smarmy”. It does not matter from which political persuasion a person has been indoctrinated – what matters is whether someone, even if they have not always supported a specific viewpoint, is prepared to make a stand when the ideology he or she believes in is subverted by those who have clawed their way to power using a party machine.
To me that is the big problem.

Indeed, Eddie, you could borrow one of my hats, if you wanted. They’re a bit late for the period, though – more early C20th than C19th, but they would suffice.
.
Vronsky, I didn’t know. It’s very generous and courageous of you to share that with us.

I seem to recall reading that back in the 1920s, when Winston Churchill had some junior ministerial job at the FO, he was sent a cable querying some directive he had sent out to Mesopotamia. It seemed that the resident out there feared that carrying out Winston’s orders would involve the deaths of many locals.

Churchill replied that he didn’t care how many heathens were killed as long as the aims of His majesty’s government were fulfilled.

No wonder there are so many people in that area of the world who hate us so badly.

I have been participating in American web sites for at least the the last 5 years…

And believe me, they are not Ready for The Truth

They Will Get Really Angry – and Tear Each Other Apart

They will also probably Nuke Tel Aviv, and if we are not Really Careful London…

But I am Convinced that all These Psycopaths Can Be Tamed and Brought To Peace…

Come on Craig…

This is Your Website

What The Fuck Do we Do?

It may be Survivable in Margate

But We Live Within The Blast Zone

I even Personally Got The Ripple Effect From The London Bombings

The BIRDS WENT CRAZY

SERIOUSLY – I am not making this up

Tony

On being a psychopath, the classic symptom are:-

High opinion of ones self importance
Compulsive lying to achieve ones goals
No empathy for others
A flagrant disregard for ones self or others safety
Compulsive risk taking
Over concerned with others opinion of self
With regard to the compulsive lying element of Blair’s psychopathic personality, it really did do him a great deal of good. My “Notable Committee” awarded him the top prize for mendacity. Truly – so don’t just discount the man….read on:-
Award to Tony Blair for mendacity

Annual NOTABLE awards for Blair and Bush (2005) – Afghan/ Iraq Review – Carter speaks.

In 2003, the “NOTABLE” AWARD was presented to Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom. This year the NOTABLE COMMITTEE having reviewed our short-list for mendacity, again recognises Blair’s sterling contribution. President Bush remained a contender, but the committee determined that Bush does not have either the brains or the capacity for articulate deception.
Bush, however, has this year been recognised as the President most worthy of the H.L. Mencken prize. In light of Mencken’s words, the committee commends President Bush for his undeniable suitability for the award, and congratulates Blair on his victory.

CITATION TO PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR
16th December 2003
Prime Minister Anthony Blair
10 Downing Street
London SW1 A 2AA
England
Dear Prime Minister Blair,

It is a distinct pleasure to inform you that the ‘NOTABLE COMMITTEE for liar of the year’ has by unanimous decision declared you ‘ NOTABLE liar of the year for 2003’. Normally, the committee makes its decision in January of the New Year. On this occasion, your mendacity so impressed us that for the first time in the committee’s history exemption was made in acknowledgment of your achievements.
You can read the full text here: – http://info-wars.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=ea38171f6c66382f19207d4406c5deeb&s=Notable+Award+2005
If Blair is indeed a psychopath, he is in a special category – “ Imperialist psychopath”.

I want to retract my conjecture that Blair is a sociopath, because of his intelligence. In a way I agree with Canspeccy that he is an imperialist. There are other things with which I don’t agree with Canspeccy, but it’s good to look for common ground.

Blair is acting neither as a sociopath nor as an imperialist. Otherwise he would not solely be targeting Syria and Iran. He is an agent of Israel above and beyond everything else. Whether for the money, blackmail, ideology or all three will probably never be known.

Tom Welsh said:
“I didn’t suggest there was anything racist about the killings in Iraq – just about the failure to care about them. (Although have you heard any recordings or accounts of the language used by American and British soldiers about “hajjis”, “sand rats”, etc.? Or the often-expressed view that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are “shitholes” (a favourite expression with Americans).”
*
All killing in war is more or less racist. The Vietnamese were Gooks, The Japanese were “Japs” and “Nips”, the Germans were Huns, Jerries, Krauts, Boche, etc. It’s difficult to stick a bayonet in the guts of someone you consider a clean cut German boy.
*
“The people who died in WW2 are constantly being remembered and memorialised.”
*
Really? You mean the 5.3 million German soldiers, the 7 million German civilian casualties? I don’t think so. When Ronald Reagan visited a shrine to dead German soldiers it created a row, just as it created a row when PM Nakasone visited a shrine to dead Japanese soldiers of WW2.
*
As for the dictators starting it, that’s pretty meaningless. The Americans cut of Japan’s oil supply. What else could they do but go to war? And the Germans were carefully manipulated into confrontation with Russia by Great Britain. Chamberlain betrayed both Poland and Czechoslovakia, inviting Germany to help herself. It was the refusal of Britain to offer a defensive alliance to Russia that persuaded the Russians to do a deal with Hitler. In fact, Britain wished to attack Russia in Finland, which Russia had invaded as preemptive move against an anticipated German attack. Britain offered 100,000 troops (after refusing any assistance to the Czechs and the Poles), but Sweden prevented consummation of the deal (British troops would have had to reach Finland via Swedish territory).
*
“The Americans actually stayed neutral until the dictatorships declared war on the USA”

Japan attacked the US because the US was attempting to suffocate Japan by denying her access to oil. The US then declared war on Germany, not the other way round.
*
“As for Stalin’s victims, Western governments were reluctant to have the truth come out because of that old factor – their precious “credibility”.”
*
Well whatever the reasons there were 40 million or so dead white people who nobody gave a damn about. So you thesis that we only care about white people is wrong. The fact is, governments make sure no one cares about anyone that the government itself kills, and governments in the last 100 years killed about 160 million people, a large proportion of whom were white.

King of Welsh, said
“The thing is, none of these attempted explanations (IMHO) get close to explaining the enigma of Blair.”
*
Maybe, you didn’t read what I said (too long to put here). But it is quite clear that Blair is an imperialist. He is for the New World Order. The process is expansion of the empire, preferably by agreement and assimilation, but if necessary by force. What’s hard to understand?
*
Of course Blair lies, all politicians lie all the time. Heck they don’t stand up in public making speeches for the edification of the public. The only time they go to the trouble of making a speech is to tell some goddam lie or other — obviously. There’s nothing abnormal in a politician doing that. If you call that psychopathology, you have to say all politicians are psycho — which I wouldn’t disagree with, but why pick on Bliar and not Clogg or Moribund, or Obama bin Lyin.
*
And the thing about this imperialist project is that it has a respectable anscestry. Its the war to end all wars. Well it would be if there’s only one global military authority. I happen to oppose it because I’d rather live under the risk of being killed in an war among nations that live in a limitlessly corrupt global empire which will sink into a decay, decadence and disintegration.

And in fact, many white war deaths are hotly disputed. See for example the controversy about the alleged starvation of one million German POW’s after WW2.

TB is a Zionist puppet. As is many of the top people in european governments, media and banks and EU. Not to speak of the clown Rasmussen in NATO. Same with the US government.
.
The puppet masters, the Zionist banksters, that actually control and direct the way our society is developing are the root of the evil.
.
Ordo ab Chao is their modus operandi in creating one global fascist police state. They want as many wars and as much killing as possible to take place, they attack US, UK, Spain, Norway, Italy and many other countires, blaming the muslim (or right-wing) “terrorists” in order to create chaos and fear.
.
They stir up local violence in order to slam it with even more violence.
.
Non violent non-cooperation is the way to deal with them, we are many they are just a few. Looking forward to the day when millions and millions of ordinary people hit the streets and peacefully show that this is the end, no more wars and no more killing.
.
I’m pessimistic about tomorrow, wouldn’t surprise me if we will see a major “terrorist” (black-op) attack as a 10th anniversary celebration of the 9-11 catalyst to the “war on terrer”

I sincerely apologise. I seem to have been having some ? bipolar ? moments myself in the last few days in which if I’ve offended anyone by my strong language, I apologise.
It’s not disconnected to my running a bit of a temperature, having some family problems, and the fact that I always find overwhelming bombardments on civilians in order to keep the lorries on the M6 moving, deeply personally disturbing. I go into mourning and rage for a time. Sorry about that. Whatever I may have said to offend, I apologise.

“They will also probably Nuke Tel Aviv…” Tony.
.
Nope.

As Angrysoba astutely once pointed out, WW2 in the ‘Far’ (‘Far’ to whom?) East began in the early-mid-1930s and continued, really until 1949. Many yellow people died in WW2. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Burmese…
.
“The Second Sino-Japanese War was the largest Asian war in the 20th century.[8] It also made up more than 50% of the casualties in the Pacific War if the 1937–1941 period is taken into account.” [from Wikipedia].
.
20 million USSR citizens died in WW2. The USSR and its armies consisted of many different kinds of people. I have a friend from Siberia who was in the Red Army; his skin is yellow. The USSR and Japan also were at war in northern China.
.
German POWS and Ukrainians were indeed massacred – and these were war crimes. The UK and USSR did deal repatriating lots of Tartars to the USSR, where they were then massacred. Tartars have yellow skin.
.
The many Indian and African service personnel who fought and died in WW2 on the Allied side seldom get a mention in feature films or documentaries. The myth that WW2 was a war involving only ‘white’ protagonists is a racist myth. It is grossly inaccurate.

Tony Blair is a vile little man who I hope suffers an agonising death one day,but before it happens I’d like to see him in court where all his crimes against his country and the peoples of the countries we invaded are laid bare and he is incarcerated.
A catholic god would forgive Tony Blair but there’s no proof God is a catholic.So Hell here he comes !!
Only in our Orwellian world could this war criminal become a peace envoy.
I remember his face during the Dr Kelly farce…….. he was as guilty as OJ Simpson. He couldn’t hide it !! He knew !

Three tiny problems with Craig’s post.

First, the indirect comparison of Blair to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot is grotesque, and only works at a rhetorical level. There is no need to justify this point here or indeed anywhere, it is self evident to any sane person. Sorry, no offence to those struggling to maintain their sanity!

Second, the equation of Blair’s being a serial killer with him being a supporter of Israel is also grotesque.

Third, in the Guardian piece you refer to Blair only talks about regime change and does not specify exactly how this is to come about, though admittedly he seems to be ‘open’ to the use of force. Regime change in itself, however, might not be a bad thing in Iran. I do believe that many Iranians, especially the young, urban and educated would like an opportunity to change their regime and move in a more democratic direction.

DLJ: The comparisons stand up well I believe.TB was a dictator.HE decided to go to war against Saddam on the basis of lies.As with the other dictators, he personally did not do any of the killing,but his actions have caused the deaths of millions of people.Let’s be grown up about what Bushisms and Blairisms mean with regime change.As in Libya, regime change or the desire for it means WAR !!! Ain’t no doubt about it!! Supporter of Israel !! Well yes he is.His support of zionism is well documented.When has he ever acted even handedly? Where was his criticism of Israel as peace envoy,when ” cast lead ” was being unleashed on the civilian population of Gaza ??
Democracy is just another weapon in the arsenal of the US and NATO to be wielded when necessary.Who got rid of democracy in Iran in 1958 ?? Why did the UK decide Iran was not good enough for democracy back then ?? And we’ve Cameron now, who was not the choice of the people.The majority didn’t want him.We are a shining example of what is wrong with democracy.

It may be an uncomfortable thought, but I wonder to what extent Blair is really different from any of us posting here – there may be no need to posit strange mental disorders. As regards his mendacity, it is hardly exceptional in his profession. They all tell lies and while Blair may be one of the more prolific it’s a pretty strong field. I have commented before on how many of Blue Labour were quite prominent radicals in their early years (Jack Straw, Peter Hain) and yet moved without a stumble from the definite left to the far right. Were they always wolves in sheep’s clothing, or did the job change them? Perhaps a bit of both, but I believe the second – the effect of the job – is very powerful and it requires an exceptionally strong mind and spirit to resist its baleful influence. Plainly we have no politicians with this special, platinum, incorruptibility.
.
As a political activist I have seen friends within the party rise through the ranks and take seats and Holyrood, accompanied by a steady swing in their views from left to right. I didn’t doubt their sincerity when (in their early days) they spoke on the same side of the debate as I did on a number of issues, and so I am depressed and puzzled to find that the same ideas now embarrass them. What happened?
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_the_Red_Death

I like the subtle but necesary change to his name in your piece from Blair to Bliar, may I suggest BLiar as a more prominent moniker when discussing such a traitor

Canspeccy: “The US then declared war on Germany, not the other way round.”

Umm, follow the link from there to United States declaration of war upon Germany (1941) which starts:

“On December 11, 1941, the United States Congress declared war upon Germany, in response to that nation’s declaration of war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

I.e., Germany declared war first.

This is what I recall from history lessons which made we wonder if, had Hitler not done that, WW II could have remained as two separate wars. Was it Hitler’s biggest mistake? Had Britain had to sue for peace in 1942 without US support in the North Atlantic could he have gained access to the middle east allowing him to extract his armies from Russia?

@Vronsky
.
I second what Suhayl said – it was very courageous of you to share that.
.
And I totally agree with your point that ‘confronting that truth would break his mind’. Absolutely. He’s on the radio this morning denying that the actions of the West have radicalised Muslims. He believes that because he has to.

“Mr Blair warned the threat would only end when “we defeat the ideology”.
.
“I think it will take a generation, but the way to defeat this ideology ultimately is by a better idea, and we have it, which is a way of life based on openness, democracy, freedom and the rule of law.” ”
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8754253/Tony-Blair-denies-knowing-about-rendition-of-Libyans-on-his-watch.html
.
When did Blair ever do anything to show that he believed in any of those things?
.
Does anyone seriously think that the Blair regime provided more openness? Surely his was one of the more secretive regimes, even to many of his cabinet colleagues.
.
Was his regime more democratic? Wasn’t it, on the contrary, characterised by fiat, dictat and whim?
.
Did anyone feel more free under his regime? My memory is that it was under his rule that we lost many of our freedoms.
.
And when exactly did anyone feel that his regime abided by the rule of law?
.
The man is a complete charlatan, and he looks and sounds more so with each passing day.

Serial killer
.
Psychopath
.
Sociopath
.
Conman
.
Zionist
.
Zionist puppet
.
New World Order Stooge
.
Imperialist
.
Imperialist conman.
.
New World Order Imperialist stooge
.
Illuminati shill
.
Dictator
.
Sociopathic Imperialist New World Order illuminati Shill
.
Any more?

EdDavies:”which made we wonder if, had Hitler not done that, WW II could have remained as two separate wars. Was it Hitler’s biggest mistake?”

No, the invasion of the Soviet Union was. But the declaration of war on the States was not too far behind. More, it was an unforced error. He could have stayed out of the American war.

“More, it was an unforced error. He could have stayed out of the American war.”

Like British participation in America’s post-911 wars was an unforced error. We could have stayed out of them.

Oh goody, I’m comparing Blair to Hitler!

Thanks for reminding Canspeccy of the facts, Ed Davies. Indeed, one might wonder why the US Congress would see fit solemnly to declare war on Germany, houra after Hitler himself had personally declared war on the USA.

Now we know: so that people like Canspeccy, finding a link to “US declaration of war on Germany”, would think that it happened that way round.

The great irony is that Hitler showed far greater loyalty to his ally than the USA to Britain. Most of the Nazis – probably including Hitler – didn’t think very highly of the Japanese (who were decidedly not Aryan), but nevertheless when the Japanese attacked the USA he immediately backed them up.

Contrast that with the USA, which remained steadfastly neutral for the first two years and three months of WW2, watching calmly while the Germans conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece… and reached the Moscow tramlines. The Americans, contrary to what they will often tell you nowadays, had no problem standing by with arms folded during the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. They did nothing to help us, except to sell us whatever we wanted and they could spare – for ready cash till Britain was bankrupt, and for military technology, overseas bases, and credit thereafter.

How about calculated sociopath with an OCD streak towards self grandisement, a person who flagrats with those who earn billions through arms manufacture and who keeps himself in the frame by using the media dn his past to sound the horn, with an armsfair circus at full boil, he is a dangerous charlatan that needs removing, not unlike an ulcerated pustula, urgently!

Sheitan’s latest campaign to get Syria and Iran and act as the announcer. aborition of this smiling crusader, but its was long in the coming, he has talked this over with Obama and Netanyahu, this is all planned and part of our desperate attempts to usurp what left on earth before others can control it.

Tony Blair should not be able to use mental instability as an explanation, he has lied to Parliament and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, in that he had much in common with Churchill, he who was regularly haunted by the black dog, drank copiously and was the first down the cellar, a petrified man who had genuine reasons for his behaviour.

But Bliar could also be a reincarnation of bomber Harris, who, regardless of how many lives it costs, was the first to use carpet bombing as a psychological tool to turn civilians against their rulers, who killed thousands of innocent civilians in firestorms across Hamburg and Dresden and got honoured for it with a statue.

This mornings interview with Humphrey was chilling, he is obviously the fog horn that starts the melee, because Bahrains bloody clampdown on its Shia populus, goading Iran into action, did not really work.

All this off course at the best possible time, when the anniversarry of 9/11 is coming round, a perfect time to use the memmories of the past to justify another campaign. Just as Saddam Iran will be called a supporter of Al Quaeda and the Taliban, the later is probably true, but we all know the real reasons. It is that Iran is not satisfied with being paid in chocolate money for its saffron and oil, that it is calling for a new world currency, or a reserve currency, and its not alone, just as Saddam did. The nuclear issue is just an easy point to make.

TW said:
*
“one might wonder why the US Congress would see fit solemnly to declare war on Germany, houra after Hitler himself had personally declared war on the USA.”

Hitler did not declare war on the US. He simply pointed out that under the Tripartite Agreement of September 27, 1940 Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.
*
Hitler accused President Roosevelt of waging a campaign against Germany since 1937, blamed him for the outbreak of war in 1939 and said he was planning to invade Germany in 1943. That seems a fair summary of the case.
*
Hitler wanted war neither with Britain nor with the US. He was intent on an Eastern empire and was ready to leave his “English cousins” in possession of their overseas empire. It was Chamberlain’s wish to see Germany expand eastward to create a tri-partite Europe: a diminished Russia, a German central European empire and an Anglo-French dominated Atlantic block in Alliance with the US, which is about what we have now.

Vronsky is correct, there is nothing wrong with Blair’s mental apparatus. He is the most astute British politician of his generation. But that does not mean he is a man of great intelligence or originality. To understand what he does, you have to understand what ideas by which he lives. In foreign policy he is committed to the extinction of the nation state and the creation of the New World Order, the policy outlined publicly in 2002 and before by his foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper.
*
The thing is, if you don’t like what Blair is doing, you need to formulate an alternative position. And what alternative is there? Maintenance of the old system of sovereign nations, appears to be the only option.
*
So stop making silly jokes about Blair’s name or brain. Just make up your minds. Do you support Blair’s policies of multiculturalism, the free flow of people, capital and goods, the destruction of Britain as a nation state, i.e., a unique racial, cultural and religious entity, leading to the creation of a global system where the only democracy consists in your right of consumer choice, or do you support the old system of possibly democratic sovereign states — the system under which the people of Europe have lived since the dark ages.

“democratic sovereign states — the system under which the people of Europe have lived since the dark ages.” Can Speccy.
.
Eh??? Since the Dark Ages??? What utter nonsense. The usual supremacist guff.

“a unique racial, cultural and religious entity” Can Speccy.
.
Same old, same old.

How typical for a Western “progressive” to use as an example of the murderer ONLY official foes of the Western imperialism.

What about Churchill? He was a big time murderer and torturer. Was he a psycho? Or was he JUST an imperialist ruler? Just like Blair, just like EVERY USA perz or French prez, or UK PM?

If some of them murdered a bit less than average, it was NOT because they were better, only because they had less opportunity.

Imperialism means grand larceny, and usually people are not happy with being robbed, so imperialism means also mass murder. Welcome to the REAL world, not imperialist PR one.

It’s difficult not to be personal about Blair. I listened this morning to his skilled defusing and evasion of critical questions on Today with an depressing sense of having been here many times before – though I also thought Humphreys was under-prepared. Most major Blair speeches and interviews are plausible superficially but crumble when subject to close scrutiny. His training as a barrister allied to his political sensitivity to wider audiences (including those in the media and the USA) mean he’s the lawyer you would choose to represent you on a difficult case, especially when “sincerity” and “responsibility” are needed to defend the indefensible before a jury.

The questions that matter are not Blair’s psychology or the reasons why he came to his foreign or domestic policies preferences (whether in the service of his Christian beliefs or his personal interests) but how others were persuaded to suspend their critical judgement. It was not Blair who decided to support the USA in Iraq but the House of Commons. Better to see him as exemplifying a variant type of demagoguery, one suited to a democratic but adversarial political and legal system and nourished by a culture that places trust in consumer materialism and its hidden persuaders.

Blair has been a high-risk player who manipulated a low risk culture – the UK civil service and the post-Thatcher Labour party– to serve his purposes.

[Mod: Trimmed, offensive]

*
I said “possibly” democratic states.
*
To ridicule that is to assert that the 1945 Labour Government of the UK that brought independence to India was not democratic and did not express the democratic will. Bollocks.
*
[Mod: personal, offensive remarks removed] Sorry but what you want in Europe is precisely what Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term, called genocide.
*
But this is a diversion, like Craig’s ludicrous post, to distract attention from what is really going on.
*
Think about it. What is the alternative to the New World Order? The system of possibly democratic sovereign states that existed in Europe since the dark ages. There’s not other apparent option
*
And what is Blair’s goal? Destruction of the nation state and creation of the global empire controlled by the money power. So if, like SS, you want to call anyone in favor of the democratic nation state a racist, fine, but remember, you’re putting yourself on the same side as Tony Blair.
*
This is what all the silly name calling about Blair is supposed to conceal. In reality, you’re on his side. LOL.

“Blair has been a high-risk player who manipulated a low risk culture – the UK civil service and the post-Thatcher Labour party– to serve his purposes.”
*
Good point Iain. But let’s focus on what Blair’s real purposes are, then we can see who is on who’s side.

Donno Darko is a shit film. The comparisons don’t stand up. I don’t think you know very much about politics or history or, if you have read the odd thing, your imagination is either deficient inherently or it needs more practice. Craig Murray knows this as well, but he likes to stir up controversy so the threads increase on his blog. I really should know better than to bother reading the nonsense that some, most, write it but I am as unemployed and as intelligent as Craig so for some reason I join in even though reading idiotic statements from someone I don’t know, who is a probably a teenager or something, makes me want to go and lie down. I suppose it is interesting how much paranoid conspiracy theory, anti this and that bullshit there is on the web.

Canspeccy

“To ridicule that is to assert that the 1945 Labour Government of the UK that brought independence to India was not democratic and did not express the democratic will. Bollocks.”

In 1945 UK was ruling millions of people all over the world WITHOUT any representation. Labor Government of 1945 was about as much “democratic” as a Rhodesian one. And, by the way, Indians brought their independence by THEMSELVES, UK tried its best to stop it, but failed. But I suppose for imperialists it does not really matter. And then Canspeccy has a nerve to speak about racism and lies

“Imperialism means grand larceny, and usually people are not happy with being robbed, so imperialism means also mass murder. Welcome to the REAL world, not imperialist PR one.”
*
Lidia, excellent point.
*
But you may be confusing the victims with the perpetrators. It is the Western nations that are being robbed and destroyed by the project of the NWO, as much as any other, although the means of depopulation in Iraq may have been more violent that the psychologically imposed genocide in Europe.
*
In particular, one needs to be careful in distinguishing between the people of any nation and the leadership.
*
You mention Churchill, but he did not become PM of the UK by popular assent and the first time the people had a voice in the matter (1945) they kicked him out of power. But in any case, as the discussion here reveals, the people of the UK for most part haven’t a clue what they are voting for or what the real issues are. Mostly, if opinion here is anything to go by, they’d vote for there own extermination if it were put to them in an appropriate package. In fact there well on their way there now. Two point seven million immigrants in London and millions of kids born to foreign born mothers.
*
London is no longer and English city, as poor dumb liberal John Cleese just noticed. LOL

yes, sure, it is poor little Westerners who are victims of imperialism – the same imperialism who let them participate in its grand larceny – from Africa, America, Asia. Peoples of colonies and neocolonies are NOT victims, or they do not matter. One more time, to speak about racism… The same as Zionsits are whiling here how they get no more their righteous portions of robbed from Palestinians and even call their whining “protest”.

Canspeccy, I hope you are young enough to learn and eventually know better, but I am not holding my breath. How right was Marx: “their social being …determines their consciousness” Imperialists are simply unable to see how ugly imperialism is – they are a part of it. SOME could come out of it, but only a small part. But fear you not, more than ever I am sure that imperialism’s days are near end.

Ha! You’re a Commie, eh Lidia. Well that explains your love of totalitarian global governance, even if it is by the money power.

I do not give a damn about Churchill being elected by Brits or not. He was a ruler of a many people who were NOT Brits, so it does not matter – he was an imperialist ruler, and no better and no worse than his Labor rivals. I admit that I hate him especially strong , but it is only me.

Hm,

Canspeccy is even more helpless than I thought.

The Parliament of England that emerged in the 13th century was a democratic institution. Learn some English history. Try David Hume, History of England, unabridged.
.
[Mod: edited to remove offensive comments]

Notice, Canspeccy, that your personal insults of other commenters have been edited out. If you don’t put them in, I won’t edit your comments. Don’t give me too much work or I’ll just click the “Trash” button. In my opinion, little would be lost.
.
Lidia, I left Canspeccy’s “commie” remark unedited; I’m being lenient towards him and taking it as lighthearted. Welcome aboard!

Other Mod:
*
God, how many mods does CM have? Who pays them?
*
Anyway what insults are you talking about. I suggested [Ruth] was a paid war propagandist, but that was only after she insulted me first. She called me an “intel agent”, that was a while ago, it’s true, but I was simply returning the compliment. Clark had evidently forgotten the earlier exchange, when he commiserated with [Ruth] for my rudeness.
*
I don’t think I insulted anyone else, at least not without reason. SS deliberately and dishonestly misquoted me. I naturally responded sharply.
*
But cut out whatever you want. I am always puzzled by this site. Is it just a place for very confused naive liberals who cannot see what is before their own eyes or is it a NWO propaganda site. I’ve tried to debate that issue on this thread, but there are few takers. Why? It seems clear to me that Tony Blair is a NWO advocate, either from conviction or because it pays. Either way, heaping insult upon him as CM and others here have done seems pointless unless it is a means to distract attention from what Blair is all about.
*
Now cut that out and I’ll maybe have a better idea of what this site is about.
.
[Other Mod: diminutive nickname corrected. You're giving me excess work, Canspeccy]

Oh, I see Other Mod has not deleted my remark about the English Parliament, s/he has edited it, but not in a transparent way. I think that amounts to distortion. Why not delete the entire comment? Then at least I won’t appear to be misrepresenting myself.

Repost it yourself without the insults; I’m not getting paid, and if I was it wouldn’t be by you. If you want the edited version deleted, ask. If you want anything else of yours deleted, specify it clearly.
.
There’s a simple rule. You can criticise the content, but you can’t insult the contributors. Suhayl Saadi called your content “supremicist guff”. You called Suhayl Saadi a racist liar. Thus, you suffered moderation and he didn’t. Geddit?

In all humility, Other Mod, I would be glad if you will tell me what is the difference between an advocate of “supremacist guff” and a racist, and if there is none, perhaps you will acknowledge that I merely returned Saadi’s insult (although the terms I used were, in my view justifiable). As for calling Saadi a liar, he deliberately misquoted me. So what is the difference between misrepresentation and lying?
*
More importantly, though, I would like to know what is “supremacist guff” in pointing out that Tony Blair is a globalist imperialist and that the alternative to Balir’s globalism is nationalism, and that if you are not for Tony Blair’s programme of ever expanding empire through voluntary assimilation or forced submission, which was spelled out by Blair’s foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper in 2002, then what can you be for other than the continuation of the age-old system of sovereign states?
*
Or put that another way, if you are against the age-old system of sometimes democratic sovereign states, how can you not be for Tony Blair’s program of global empire with its implicit object of destroying the ancient nations of Europe, and elsewhere, with their unique racial, cultural and religious characteristics?
*
If there is a third way, no one here has mentioned it.

Tom Welsh: The great irony is that Hitler showed far greater loyalty to his ally than the USA to Britain. Most of the Nazis – probably including Hitler – didn’t think very highly of the Japanese (who were decidedly not Aryan), but nevertheless when the Japanese attacked the USA he immediately backed them up.

Contrast that with the USA, which remained steadfastly neutral for the first two years and three months of WW2, watching calmly while the Germans conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece… and reached the Moscow tramlines. The Americans, contrary to what they will often tell you nowadays, had no problem standing by with arms folded during the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. They did nothing to help us, except to sell us whatever we wanted and they could spare – for ready cash till Britain was bankrupt, and for military technology, overseas bases, and credit thereafter.
.
This is really not true at all. In fact it is pretty much nonsense. The war provoked furious debate within the US between the isolationist America First Committee which didn’t want to get involved in the war and saw no obligation to given that they didn’t have treaty commitments (unlike, for example, Germany to Japan), whereas the interventionists were led by Roosevelt himself. As you may or may not know Charles Lindbergh led the isolationist wing and argued that there were three groups within the US who were trying to drag it to war and he blamed Roosevelt’s own political wing, the British and, of course, the Jews. Of course it was Lindbergh who had had a lot of admiration for Hitler’s Germany and those were the people who were arguing for non-intervention in World War II.
.
I always find it amusing that of all the anti-US memes that pop up from time to time this is one of the most enduring and it is usually propagated by those who believe the US sticks its nose into other peoples’ business far too much. When it comes to World War II, however, the US had no moral right to be neutral (unlike, say, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland etc…)
.
I’m rather glad they weren’t, the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and then Hitler’s idiotic declaration of war on the US permanently ended the America First platform who, having decisively lost the argument decided to concoct conspiracy theories about how Roosevelt MUST have known and/or engineered Pearl Harbor attacks.

Canspeccy: “Hitler did not declare war on the US.”
.
[Mod: innocuous jibe removed for sake of consistency.]
.
“And in fact, many white war deaths are hotly disputed. See for example the controversy about the alleged starvation of one million German POW’s after WW2.”
.
It didn’t happen. There was most certainly hunger in Europe after the war and civilians were often fed first but the charge made by a Canadian novelist that Eisenhower ordered the systematic starvation of a million German POWs is a only believed, or rather propagated, by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis who want to create spurious moral equivalences.
.
“The Parliament of England that emerged in the 13th century was a democratic institution. Learn some English history. Try David Hume, History of England, unabridged.”
.
It’s a largely democratic institution now, but no way was the Parliament of Henry III or Edward I in any sane sense of the word “democratic”. It was merely a place where some posh nobs from the shires could feel they had a say in the running of the country provided they hand over the cash that they gained from taxing their serfs. And why was this source of revenue necessary? So that the kings could go off on Crusades or hammer the Scots etc… In fact, as late as James I, the king was telling parliament that he reigned supreme by divine right and the only real purpose of parliament was to give him money, something which led to his successor getting his head lopped off. This is common knowledge CanSpeccy where on Earth do you read these fantasy histories? Do you just simply make them up?
.
You do cite David Hume as a source but David Hume was writing in the eighteenth century. What level of suffrage do you suppose existed back then?

@Angrysoba
Yes it did happen. Try “Other Losses” by James Bacque for just one book about it. There are others, but it’s far too late for plodding around the net.

Annie O’Nimmus: “Yes it did happen. Try “Other Losses” by James Bacque for just one book about it.”
.
Thank you. I am aware of the book which is why I referred to “the charge made by a Canadian novelist” who happens to be James Bacque.
.
The charge being made is that Eisenhower presided over a campaign of deliberately starving to death one million German POWs post-World War Two and it is a charge that no historian of the era endorses. If you could provide evidence which doesn’t source back to James Bacque’s book I would be interested. But as far as I know the consensus of historians is that James Bacque wasn’t a careful researcher and made a lot of errors in writing his book.

I thought that ref. to German POWs was to those killed by Stalin, but obviously not.
.
The only alternative to international fundo capitalism is not fascism/nazism (heavy or lite) or some variant thereof.

Suhayl Saadi: I thought that ref. to German POWs was to those killed by Stalin, but obviously not.

.
Well, it is true that the Soviet Union took a particularly brutal revenge on the Germans and I have read statistics that say two million German women were raped by the Soviet Union’s troops. I don’t know how true those figures are but I certainly think there were many German soldiers who would count on getting better treatment from US/UK soldiers if they surrendered to them rather than the Soviets. And that, somewhat circuitously brings us back to the allegations that Eisenhower deliberately starved to death a million soldiers. The numbers of German soldiers surrendering to the US/UK forces was much larger than that expected which meant that it was very difficult to feed the number of POWs who turned up expecting a place to be held with full rations. It did result in low rations for POWs, on top of the fact that many of the camps were of pretty abysmal standards and also that many of the food supplies that were sent to the German POWs were redirected to civilians. Things were bad for the German POWs just as they were bad for almost all the losing countries in that awful conflagration – and for some of the victors too. But the specific charge that Eisenhower or anyone else determined that German POWs would be forcibly starved to death and the charge that this led to one million deaths is not taken seriously by any historian of that era that I know of.

Yes, Germans and others tried their hardest to surrender to the US/UK armies and not to the Red Army. Also, Soviet POWs, on return to the USSR, were also massacred by Stalin because he thought there might be spies among them. Not to say that there weren/’t abuses by the US/UK armies, there were, but not on a mass, systemic basis. There is a rumour that some Italian POWs were summarily shot in Paisley, Scotland. I’ve never been able to find out much more about this shameful episode, but the Italian Scots know about it. But of course, most German and Italian POWs in the UK were relatively well-treated. Some stayed and and married locally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/03/uk.freedomofinformation

“This is really not true at all. In fact it is pretty much nonsense”.

And then you go on to talk about completely different matters. You gave not one single fact or number to show that what I said was untrue. That would be impossible, because it is all cold hard fact.

You gave not one single fact or number to show that what I said was untrue. That would be impossible, because it is all cold hard fact.

.
Okay let’s make it easy for you:
.
The great irony is that Hitler showed far greater loyalty to his ally than the USA to Britain.
.
The US had no formal treaty with the UK so how could the US show loyalty to a non-existence alliance?
.
Most of the Nazis – probably including Hitler – didn’t think very highly of the Japanese (who were decidedly not Aryan), but nevertheless when the Japanese attacked the USA he immediately backed them up.
.
Germany went to war with the US because the US was blasting the German submarines that were attacking convoys to the UK. This was mentioned in the actual declaration.
.
Contrast that with the USA, which remained steadfastly neutral for the first two years and three months of WW2, watching calmly while the Germans conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Yugoslavia, Greece… and reached the Moscow tramlines.
.
There was nothing calm about it. The issue caused furious debate in the US.
.
The Americans, contrary to what they will often tell you nowadays, had no problem standing by with arms folded during the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. They did nothing to help us, except to sell us whatever we wanted and they could spare – for ready cash till Britain was bankrupt, and for military technology, overseas bases, and credit thereafter.
.
It is a contradiction to say that the US did nothing to help us except sell us whatever we wanted, is it not?