Greatly misunderstood, and therefore overrated, in this country, just a few years ago Blair was depicted by many as our Churchillian ally, sending troops to Iraq, and what's more, able to utter two or three consecutive sentences that seemed to make a kind of sense -- thus distinguishing himself from the confused, yet obstinate in his confusion, American President.
It was all nonsense. Few in the United States knew about Blair the trimmer and Blair the schemer, and Blair the man who carred a Qur'an about with him and was even more fervent than Bush in his expressed admiration for that book and for Islam. Blair soon after 9/11 was ostentatiously carrying a Qur'an around, telling one and all that he was reading it, or had read it, and that there was nothing worrisome about its contents. Whether he has discovered that the Hadith and Sira are equally inoffensive, and that the entire history of Muslim conquest has been one of almost uninterrupted sweetness and light, is unclear.
To take his measure, read the little chapter devoted to him in Rory Stewart's The Places In Between, entitled "Blair and the Koran." It shows most, if not quite all, of Blair's fatuity. It stops short of completing the job, because Stewart does not let loose with the real contents of Qur'an and Hadith. In fact, he fails to mention that Blair overlooks, or appears not to know about, the Hadith and Sira, as if the Qur'an were all that mattered. I would guess that this is not Stewart's fault, but that his publisher did not want him to be too explicit on the subject of Islam. Nonetheless, he does a good job of blowing up Blair, his pretensions, his claims to understanding Islam, his everything. And Blair is not the worst political figure England now has to offer; he is one of the semi-acceptable ones.
Then think of what he is doing now. From southern Thailand across all of Asia to Iran and Iraq and Lebanon and in Gaza and in Egypt and in Algeria, and in France, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and then to North America, where we are not fighting them here (so all those people arrested, those "charities" shut down, those plots uncovered, are figments of perfervid imaginations) because, you see, we "are fighting them over there," despite everything that is happening he still prates about the importance of a settlement between "Israel" and "Palestine." (Yet this in itself is a toponym which, nowadays, as referring to precisely the same territory, or much of it, sinisterly reifies what does not now and should not exist.) He thus echoes all those who believe this to be true not because there is evidence that it is true, but because the Arabs tell them that it is true -- they wouldn't lie, would they? And it is so much more pleasant to keep avoiding the nature of Islam, the tenets of Islam, the attitudes of Islam, the atmospherics of Islam, to ignore the texts, to ignore the jurisconsults, to ignore the Qur'anic commentators, to ignore everyone from al-Ghazali to Ibn Khaldun, to ignore all the scholars from Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje to Arthur Jeffery and Ignaz Goldziher, and to substitute for all of those the My Weekly Reader-level treatments of self-deluded Karen Armstrong and the venal John Esposito. It is so much more pleasant to ignore, in short, everything -- and to concentrate on mighty Israel, and its mighty threat to the Arabs and Muslims, and to somehow pretend that the Taliban will be soothed if only the "two-state solution" is implemented. Yet “two-state solution” is itself a farcical phrase that can only be used by the unthinking, for it is no "solution" to feed Islamic triumphalism. It is no "solution" to visibly weaken Israel so that the Arab rulers feel in some cases that they can, and in other cases that they must, go in for the final kill.
Blair is Everyman, or rather Everyleader in this Iron Age. He invites comparison with Bush and gains by the comparison. But on any other scale, his silliness, after so many years when he has had every chance to learn about Islam, is striking and unnerving and grotesque.
He and Bush, and most of the other leaders, and the members of respective parliamentary bodies, and the most important radio and television stations (including the BBC there and NPR here), and the major newspapers, are all determined not to study, not to think, and certainly not to instruct others, in the real nature of Islam.
And the danger is not an abstract one. The longer Infidels do not understand, the more likely it is that they will continue to permit Muslim immigration into their countries. The longer Infidels do not understand, the more likely it is that they will assume that the "murderous ideology" which Bush has referred to with his usual vagueness, can indeed be defeated by offering a counter-ideology of "compassion and hope."
Some of that new ideology of "compassion and hope" can be seen in Iraq today, in such places as Basra, where Shari'a rules are being established through force, in Iraq, our friend full of friendly Iraqis, where the Iraqi government has just signed an agreement for the training of some of those friendly Iraqis by no doubt equally friendly Iranians.
Everything begins with understanding the nature of the enemy, what prompts that enemy, what inspires or per contra demoralizes that enemy. If that is not understood, the nation will not know where to put its feet and hands. That's what Confucius say. And so do I.
"Everything begins with understanding the nature of the enemy, what prompts that enemy, what inspires or per contra demoralizes that enemy. If that is not understood, the nation will not know where to put its feet and hands. That's what Confucius say. And so do I".
We need a new brand of leaders-the Bushes and Blairs just don't get it. Many of them are either ignorant of Islam or are merely paid shills of Islamania doing their master's bidding. The frightening thing is where will such leadership come from? Self serving political hacks have been around forever and with all that dirty oil money buying up people left and right it seems as if we're doomed to defeat. It's as if only a dictator
untroubled by conscience and untainted by Saudi money will be the only type of leader capable of fighting the enemy effectively.
Used to be a time, when you a leader, whether a politician or a professor or a pundit or even an artist telling a story that, if the story told was wrong, then you called out for being wrong, and you were diminished however much thereafter.
This doesn't happen anymore.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
My favorite example of this is Keith Obermann. When this particular knucklehead was hired into his cable news job, he promptly shat his pants by proclaiming an electoral fraud conspiracy had taken place in the Florida Panhandle during Kerry vs. Bush.
It was all so obvious to Keith: The voters up there were predominately registered Democrats, yet they overwhelmingly voted for Bush. Obvious conspiracy.
But alas, there was no conspiracy. Keith, the intellectually lazy fake intellectual, had never heard of Dixiecrats.
Was he fired? Did he resign in shame? Become the butt of cruel jokes?
No, he got a raise and is a star opinion programmer now.
ISLAMSFORLOSERS
..."It's as if only a dictator untroubled by conscience and untainted by Saudi money will be the only type of leader capable of fighting the enemy effectively."
I bear similar sentiment: I too felt that it's as if only a secular statism unfazed by pc rhetorics and uncorrupted by dirty oil money will be the type of government capable of confronting the menacing evils of Islamism.
Blair is no Churchill.
Who would BBC readers most like to see rule the world?
Noam Chomsky.
Who do they think is the greatest philosopher of all time?
Karl Marx.
We are witnessing, in real time, the once glorious Britianna foundering on the dangerous, polluted Sea of Post Modernism.
James Lewis observed the other day over at The American Thinker that "in Europe, where their press is not nearly as free as ours and there is little access to competing views such as talk radio, . . .European thought is absolutely stifled by the Left, which doesn't see any respectable alternative [to itself]..., since conservatism is constantly and deliberately confounded with fascism."
So why are they so stuck? Bob Goodwin at One Cosmos blog thinks both Britian and American Leftists have crossed the line into genuine soul pathology, incapable of learning, and psychology is powerless to explain it or to do anything about it. Bob goes on - "By far the most successful approach would be a 12 step program, undoubtedly because it addresses the underlying soul pathology."
Given the course Britian has set for herself, she's headed into much harder times and may even have to hit skid row before it adopts this strategy of gentrification.
1. We admitted we were powerless over the intoxicating dreams of socialism, and that our lives and governments had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a power far greater than our own omnipotent little egoic dreams of control could restore us to true liberalism.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the Creator and Guarantor of our Liberty.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of the well-intentioned failures and frank evils of socialism.
5. Admitted to the Creator of our Liberty, to ourselves, and in a live phone call to C-SPAN [BBC] the exact nature of socialism’s wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have the Creator of Our Liberty remove all these defects of ideology.
7. Humbly asked Him to cancel our subscription to the Times [& BBC.]
8. Made a list of all races, genders, and classes we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all by realizing that these constructs are irrelevant.
9. Made direct amends to such people by switching parties.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were again tempted to abuse ideology for the purposes of blotting out reality, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with the Source of our Liberty, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other Leftists, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Agreed as above, Blair is NO Churchill
In truth Blair is not even worthy to stand near Churchill's political Shadow
and anybody who attempts comparison is delusional, if only because Churchill never surrendered
Unlike Blair who spouts hot air about determined actions abroad, but sacrifices all back home to the Islamics
I doubt he's even aware the koran isn't chronological.
It has percolated into Blair's thick skull that a lot a Muslims out there are a menace. He just hasn't the common sense, breadth of culture or depth of experience to realise that it is Islam which is the threat and therefore all Muslims are a potential menace. His latest diplomatic round reminds me of the Biblical proverb about fools returning to their folly.
ISLAMFORLOOSERS wrote:
..."It's as if only a dictator untroubled by conscience and untainted by Saudi money will be the only type of leader capable of fighting the enemy effectively."
And FreedomSeeker33 replied:
"I bear similar sentiment: I too felt that it's as if only a secular statism unfazed by pc rhetorics and uncorrupted by dirty oil money will be the type of government capable of confronting the menacing evils of Islamism."
Well, Vlad Putin would fit these features neatly, and he is arming the jihadist camp quite openly --for example, Syria and Iran.
What we need is not any sort of secular dictator, but a grassroots movement pushing for authentically MORAL leadership within the free world.
Moral clarity is a must in this war.
Tony Blair's father was a Communist apparently.
I read elsewhere that Tony Blair was a Socialist early in his political career.
Having myself, had a Communist girlfriend years ago, who's father also happened to be a Communist, I'm leery of this "ex-Communist/Socialist" description.
In my experiece, Communists are basically anarchists. If they weren't Communists they'd be arsonists...anything to stir the shit.
Trouble is what they are.
My Communist girlfriend would take me to meetings, trying to convert me to te cause.
You'd be surpised at just how many of them there are!
She openly admitted to me that it was necessary to create trouble and strife in a society to create Revolution.
She was most embarassed when, to a bunch of her buddies, I described Communism as doomed because people are too selfish to share wealth voluntarily and that this state ordained wealth distribution must be achieved through threat of violence.
Also, Communism/Socialism, for the same selfish reasons, destroy any incentive for creativity and hard work, hence the common theme in such societies of economic depression.
I don't trust ex-Socialists with Communist fathers.
I don't trust Blair.
Seriously, stop insulting Churchill by putting Blair's name in the same sentence.
lol, I just did it myself.
Funnily enough Prime Minister Anthony Eden MC could speak French, German, Farsi, Russian and Arabic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Eden
He could read The Koran in Arabic and quote it.........it did him no good at all when he got into a big hole over Suez in 1956
Blair likes to pretend to be educated - he is not. Reading a Koran in Penguin edition is laughable when he has learned theologians who know it better - but Blair wants to be all things to all men. He is a fraud - I doubt he has even read the Bible cover to cover or knows the Old Testament at all.
Blair is a 'smells and bells' man who likes the Catholic Church dressing-up ceremonies - he is theatrical and reads his lines. Surely Americans can see Showbizz when it makes an appearance ?
Moral clarity is a must in this war.
Posted by: Joel Català at December 22, 2006 12:29 PM
Agreed. I would not want a dictator running things either but if the choice is to let things go the way they're going or have a dictator run things a lot of people will favor one (perhaps a "mild", Putin type who doesn't aid jihadists or one in the Hitler/Stalin mold). An event worse than 9/11 or an economic depression will start people looking in the direction of a strongman if he offers hope to combat the Islamaniac menace.
Modern political leadership is a symptom of democracy slowly winning the war between itself and excellence.
perhaps a "mild", Putin type
You think Putin is "mild" ?
He's supplying an air defence system to Iran to block US systems; stationing Russian agents in Lebanon; today doubled the price of natural gas to Georgia to foce it back under Moscow control; no doubt will take control of Turkmenistan and its natural gas so he can squeeze Ukraine some more.
He had a big party in honour of the KGB yesterday and it has a huge new HQ.
He now controls 90% media outlets in Russia through Gazprom.
Maybe you'll get your wish and have a US President who turns the CIA loose and takes control of Exxon and Shell and takes control of all the broacast networks and newspapers and radio stations...............sounds like it could be a dreamy place to live this New USA you're praying for
Mike_W
All Labor politicians are socialists. Be that in UK or in Australia and most probably Canada. I think there is as much confusion over the word "socialist" as there is "liberal". John Howard is a liberal and heads up a party with that name.
And if you want to blame a man for his father's views and activities, what is your comment about Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose father was a Natzi?
Maybe thats OK eh?
Regards
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age; but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or another.
The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable…
-From The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by Emmanuel Goldstein
Blair is a charlatan.
Churchill had sussed the death cult of the mommadans even without the benefit of atrocities like the 9/11.
Apart from its spelling, I doubt if Blair knows anything about islam. However, we in Britain are not just plagued by idiots like him, David Cameron is just another moron waiting in the wings to wreak havoc on us if his brown nosing of muslims is anything to go by. And talking about things brown, our Gordon is keen to make London the capital of islamc banking system and wants to create a permanent ministry of islamic affairs in his government when he is crowned the leader of the Labour party when Blair steps down next year.
Again, taking about things crown, our Charles has made the land of Ga Ga his permanent abode and has completly lost touch with reality. He says that he wants to become the defender of all faiths (read islam) when he becomes Knig and also has read the quaran many times over (the Penguin edition no doubt).
So there you have it, we in Britain are well and truly stuffed!
The men who created a civilization that just landed a spacecraft will not lose to those who cannot build a car. The rest is filling in the details. And the longer it takes for our leaders to name the problem and take responsible action, the worse it will be for all involved. When the gyroscope returns to equilibrium.
I absolutely detest Blair. I know not if he is willfully ignorant of islam or a deceituous dhimmi.
I was absolutely appalled at the ability of crypto communist Tony Bliar's ability to fool the world. Most of Britain has seen through his false smile but because of massive postal vote theft the British public has been able to do nothing about him. Tony Bliar is a monumental liar and a corrupt piece of excrement and his foul wife is trying to get as many illegal immigrants in as possible and stopping terrorists from facing justice by desperately searching for loopholes with her 5th column law company, Matrix Chambers. Bliar does not tell a word that is true, if you were standing outside and he said it was raining you would have to check if you were wet he is that bad. His New Labour party exists to get what they can while they can, they fill their pockets with Saudi money, accept bribes for honours, there are even a few of them who have been caught downloading child pornography and are being protected by their colleagues. In effect the British government has ceased to exist, the country is in on autopilot and they are just hanging on until the last day because they know they cannot win another election.
First I take something from a recent thread on JW, re T.B.Liar:
"" People are becoming concerned about your welfare.
Sincerely
A Concerned member of the free world.
Posted by: exsgtbrown ""
Yes sarge, we're concerned that he's still breathing. As long as he's breathing he's lying. We KNOW that, not just suspect it.
Some of us in the UK are starting to come around to the idea that a military coup might not be a bad idea. I'd certainly support it, with men like Generals Dannatt and Jackson around.
Not only is Blair NOT a Churchill, in his obsessive desire to burnish his tarnished legacy by focusing on "solving" the Palestinian-Israel situation, and in the way he has consistently kowtowed to British Muslims at the expense of Western interests, he has become that which Churchill warned his countrymen about: a weasly, appeasing crocodile-feeder.
The beast is still gonna get you, Tony.
"And if you want to blame a man for his father's views and activities, what is your comment about Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose father was a Natzi?"
Posted by: payingattention
I blame no-one for the views of their father.
However, we must not underestimate just how strongly the views of a parent can become manifest in a child.
Look at the blood oath sworn by Hannibal to his father to avenge Carthage against Rome prior to the Second Punic War for example.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger's father was a Nazi, in the absence of Hitler there seems little risk of his becoming a Nazi.
Fascism on the other hand, being more flexible in personality cult figurehead requirements, might pose a problem but personally I can see no evidence of fascism in Arnold Schwarzenegger.
By contrast, Tony Blair shows every inclination of following in his father's footsteps.
Have a look at the articles by Melanie Phillips for just how destructive Blair's socialist policies have been in Britain.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/
From the article "Blue Line",
"It has trapped ever more millions of people into debilitating dependency upon the state, infantilising them by robbing them of responsibility for their own lives and families. Wrapping itself in the sanctimonious mantle of progressive politics, it actually betrays the progressive ideal of social justice. Instead of encouraging the good in people and minimising the bad, it rewards the bad and punishes the good.
Indeed it is deeply reactionary, deriving from the core belief that people are fundamentally contemptible and cannot be trusted with independence, needing the superior wisdom and beneficence of the state to run their lives instead.".
Let's be fair to the man! All the money to pay lawyers to keep Somali criminals and police killers in the country has to come from somewhere, and then there are all those public relations spin-doctors making fat salaries telling us what a great government we have.
So what matter if teenage reservists are sent to face religious maniacs in Afghanistan and Iraq? What matter that they had to ride past roadside bombs in broken-down Land Rovers while Tony has three separate armoured convoys for his safety? What matter that the ammunition for their weapons doesn't work because our Tony's experts thought it would be a good idea to buy cheap stuff from India? What matter that the RAF has to buy clapped-out aircraft from Germany to carry out even routine training duties? What matter that the RAF’s performance in Afghanistan is described is useless, because not only does it not have enough aircraft and training, it doesn't have the right type of aircraft.
It's all part of the price of being in a great liberal democracy and Tony has his priorities.
Mike_W
I think you breezed past my point, instead focusing on the minutiae of the last sentence. I think what you think is a socialist and what I think is a socialist are two different things. Socialism in Europe and Australia is a political view well within the mainstream left. So socialist parties get elected routinely in Europe and Australia. For 10 years we have not had a socialist government in Australia.. only 10.. and I think we are the better for it. But soon I expect (1 - 4 years we will have one again, and they seem to be very similar minded to Blair
I think you breezed past my point, instead focusing on the minutiae of the last sentence. I think what you think is a socialist and what I think is a socialist are two different things.
Posted by: payingattention
I'm not sure exactly what your definiton of Socialism is but I found a few definitions that I agree with :
a definition of socialist,
"a person who favours and supports socialism."
schools.cbe.ab.ca/b628/social/russia/glossary.html
a definiton of Socialism,
"economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion."
www.ilstu.edu/class/hist127/terms.html
a definition of Communism,
"the political, social, and economic system of certain countries in which the state, governed by a single party without formal opposition, owns all property. control the production and distribution of goods and services, and, to a great extent, control the social and cultural life of the people."
schools.cbe.ab.ca/b628/social/russia/glossary.html
I see Socialism in Western democracy as stealth Communism.
Socialism and Communism are similar, Communism differing being totalitarian in nature and Godless.
Mike_W,
This is an anti-Jhadist not a anti-socialist website. Stop wasting space with irrelevancies.
To clarify:
The extremely expensive decision to re-arm in the early 1950's in the UK was taken by a labour ( which then called itself a socialist party) government. The UK has, proportionately, spent more of its GDP on defence, than any other western European state, both under labour and conservative govts. Much of the problem with British army equipment at the moment is being caused by the project to divert resources to equipping it for a role as part of a chimerical European rapid reaction force (needing aircraft carriers, the Eurofighter etc).Blair's decision to go ahead with renewing trident may have its labour critics but is hardly indicative of a butter not guns outlook.
The phenomenon of social democrats seeing the Muslin communities as their natural supporters is showing signs of dissolving. Their refusal to integrate is turning them into a greater electoral liability than their block vote is worth, their equivocation of terrorism is becoming obvious, the socially reactionary nature of their beliefs and supremacist ambitions is disturbing many 'liberals', some of whom at least are beginning to see Islam as a threat to a multi-cultural society. They are not, however, interested in espousing xenophobic, right-wing conservative views at the same time. Americans like their capitalism harsh -Europeans don't. It's an historical/cultural thing.
There is a tendency by Europeans and many American liberals (since 1967)to see the Palestinian Arabs as just another downtrodden people, who could become contented and peace loving, if given a fair deal. This s not necessarily because they are anti-semites. Sympathy for the (perceived) underdog is a left-wing thing and the Muslims play on this for ll it's worth. The fact that their analysis omits the dimension of Islamic irrationality is a fault of western misunderstanding of Islam: the Israelis themselves could do a lot more in helping to enlighten the west on this point.
This is an anti-Jhadist not a anti-socialist website. Stop wasting space with irrelevancies.
Posted by: wallyUK
In your opinion the link between Islam and socialism is irrelevant.
How can one deal with an issue such as the Islamization of Britain/Europe in total isolation from politics of the host countries?
In my opinion there has been a deliberate and malicious attempt by Communism to culturally destroy Western Europe - heck the whole of Western civilization.
It is my belief that one of the weapons used has been multiculturalism, to introduce Islam to Western Europe to be used to incite future revolutiuon or perhaps as a fifth column in conventional warfare.
Anyway, the next few years will tell the truth of the matter.
We may well see the cultural war heat up into more conventional warfare.
We know that Blair is lying every time his lips are moving. As for his opinions about Islam, they only serve to prove that either his is completely ignorant about the true nature of Islam due to having not read any Hadith, or that he is deliberately hiding the truth from the public either because of the flawed ideology of appeasement, or because he is a closet Muslim (a possibility considering that he carries a Koran around with him). Any of those possibilities is not good news for the UK.
We do have one viable alternative to the mainstream three political parties; the BNP. Whilst this party is not by any means squeaky clean (it's still socialist but not as absurdly so), it at least is facing the fact that Middle Eastern Immigrants are not assimilating and suggests sending those here illegally back home.
I believe that the UK needs a capitalist government that runs not from ideologies, but from hard facts and observable truths. Considering the way that leftist parties mock those who tell the truth and brand them as 'haters' for violating the political correctness doctrine, I have reason to believe that Leftism is in fact a political cult that people have been suckered into.
The truth is that we cannot fight Islamism effectively until we fight leftism, simply because leftism prevents people from identifying the truth about Islam. Intellectual honesty can kill two birds with one stone when correctly introduced to the population.
Truthseeker (sic) wrote:
"We do have one viable alternative to the mainstream three political parties; the BNP."
So that's what all this anti-leftism ultimately amounts to; a clear advocacy of Nazism.
Americans reading this may need to be reminded that the BNP is the Nazi party of Britain. They've got attention recently because of their anti-Islam campaign, but they often as not get attention when they are sectretly filmed by undercover journalists promoting racial violence and making vile jokes about the holocaust.
I bet a lot of the right-wing lunatics among you were somewhat dismayed to see that Ku Klux Klan guy finding common ground with the Iranian government.
Jihadism is extremely right-wing. Leftists, and all those who believe in a progressive universalism must fight it.
IMO, Koran itself has a lot of scary stuff, however a thorough analysis is needed to understand how menevolent, for example, the polygamy is. Where do the extra women come in a peaceful environment? Koran is designed to provide a moral foundation to a certain type of order. Unfortunately, the academic research is based on direct instructions, with supporting mechanisms being completely ignored
Schmegel -- spare us your pious lectures -- your comments border on ludicrous. Coming as you do from a nation that is
A. so far left that the average Republican American would also be labelled a "Nazi", and
B. so far down the primrose path of Dhimmitude and Multicultural Paradise,
I think we can do without your advice!
"Progressive Universalism" -- an Orwellian euphemism -- one of the only things that commies and socialists are good at manufacturing -- nefariously made to cloak your own heinous fanatical radicalism.
Your post modern belief in nothing and your assertions that "Jihadism is extremely right-wing" despite all the evidence to the contrary is part of the problem which allows those seditious Muslims to run rough shod over your previously excellent nation. Get a grip on reality. Take note of the complete similarity between your own all-one-worldism, (no borders / no war ) and the fanaticism of your charming several million Muslims. It's the same utopianist BS which brought us Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the UBL jihadis.
I hate blair his a Turk loving bastard who loves the turks and wants them in EU and makes excuses for them to join EU and he says to forget that they occupy N Cyprus and he blames the greeks Cypriots for not voting yes to reunification