Blair Bliar & The Islamist Hatred He Brought

The Commission studying the war crimes of Prime Minister Blair came up with scathing conclusions. Blair is culprit as charged by anybody who has studied the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even Donald Trump thunderously charged, speaking of Bush and his ilk: “they lied”.

The lie was that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a secular regime, had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Of course it did not. Blair claimed that he was sincere, July 6, 2016. Either he is lying again, or he admits that he was then, truly, a complete imbecile. There is only one weapon of mass destruction: the nuclear bomb. It was impossible for Iraq to develop one, because Iraq had no nuclear reactor (so no Plutonium), nor a (extremely visible, as they were then immense) isotopic separation factories (so Iraq had no Uranium 235, the one and only other nuclear explosive). In truth, Blair was an architect of evil. Being an architect of evil, and how to sell that to We The People, is a skill plutocrats are ready to pay top dollar for. Thus Blair became immensely rich, following the Bill Clinton model:

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Only A Small Part of It. Blair Is An Expert At Criminal Government, And How To Get Away With It, So His Services Are Much In Demand

Normal British and American people are ill-informed: their governments lied to their face, Hitler style, and they goose-stepped behind them.

The British Chilcot commission, recognized that, as a result, at least 150,000 Iraqi civilians died. 179 UK soldiers died, and more than 4,400 American soldiers (in truth much more than that, and several times that number were maimed, often inside their brains, from the accelerations of exploding IEDs).

Blair In A Few Words

Blair In A Few Words

Worse: the invasion of Iraq, this blunt, delirious, obscene, groundless attack against a secular Arab country showed to all Arabs, and now the whole world, that Islam was right all along. Thus the Islamist State mentality was born. Even worse: to the whole world, it was made obvious that the only way to oppose the West’s plutocratic drift, is on religious grounds (this already happened in the Seventh Century). And the anti-West religion par excellence is Islam (Islam was designed that way, explicitly, by Muhammad; Muhammad insisted that Islam was the way to defeat the Greco-Roman civilization and the Persian one, a Greco-Babylonian derivative). 

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

Blair Gave Bush The Cover He Needed

As The Guardian puts it: “Asked whether invading Iraq was a mistake Blair was strikingly unrepentant. “I believe we made the right decision and the world is better and safer,” he declared. He argued that he had acted in good faith, based on intelligence at the time which said that Iraq’s president had weapons of mass destruction. This “turned out to be wrong”.”

Blair’s two-hour press conference came after Chilcot, a retired civil servant, published his long-awaited report, seven years in the making, into the Iraq debacle. In the end, “it was a more far-reaching and damning document than many had expected. It eviscerated Blair’s style of government and decision-making.“

It also revealed that in a private note sent on 28 July 2002 Blair promised Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.” Is it just the love between two men, or the love of greed, and power, overwhelming all?

Thus now Islam, and its social equality message, poses as the great answer to the ravages of plutocracy. That is why Islam is gaining, even in Brazil.

How to stop all this? Well, first things first: the war criminals, those who conducted a war of aggression thanks to huge lies, should be indicted for war crimes.

At Nuremberg, Joachim Von Ribbentrop was condemned to hang (slowly, it turned out), for “war of aggression”. By this was meant the attack on Poland. France (and its British poodle, safely removed on its island) declared war to Germany three days later.  

So France was not viewed as the aggressor, although the Nazis accused France to have started World War Two. Why? One needs judgment: the aggressor were the Nazis, not the French Republic. And this is exactly what is needed now: judgment. Judge Blair and Bush. And their criminally behaved poodles. At least, if you want to avoid We The People to turn to Islam to stop what has become a criminal way of managing government, and getting away with it. For all to see.

Sex is strong. Hatred is stronger. Pushed to its limit, hatred makes killing the enemy what gives sense to the world. Hatred makes oneself divine (or very close to it). As the Qur’an explicitly says. This is the new world of mood Bush and Blair mightily fostered (part of a US tradition of using Islam as it always had been meant to be used, ever since the Fourth Caliph (Uthman): as an instrument of subjugation) . All those who don’t want to punish Bush and Blair for fostering mayhem, Islamization and subjugation,  contribute to it.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Blair Bliar & The Islamist Hatred He Brought”

  1. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to The Conversation]
    Bush and Blair should be charged as criminals. Not doing so is a threat to Western civilization, let alone democracy. It is also being an objective collaboration with the most extreme terrorism, as it condones it explicitly. For more details google “Patrice Ayme Blair Bliar and the the Islamist Hatred He Brought”


  2. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Invasion of Iraq: the blunt, obscene, groundless attack against a secular Arab country showed to all Arabs, and not just to Arabs, that the most extreme interpretation of Islam was right all along.


  3. picard578 Says:

    Actually, nuclear bomb, poison gasses, biological agents all classify as weapons of mass destruction. To that list I’d add Islam, Wall Street, World Bank etc.

    Rest of the article I fully agree. What is interesting is how often people turn to one evil to escape from another. We saw that before, when people turned to Nazism and Communism to escape liberal capitalism, and when they turned to Islam to escape plutocracy.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      OK, good jokes. I deliberately restricted the meaning of WMD. Gases are very difficult to use on the battlefield.

      The wind can change, or the attacking troops are afraid to go across the gazed areas, let alone cannot do it well because of protection equipment, as happened the first time the Prussian army used it in WWI. The Prussians had anticipated making a huge hole in the French army, as gases had not been used before, and the usage was a surprise. Thousands of French troops died (5,000-7,000, from memory), but German troops could not break through.

      Biological agents were used as WMDs in the Middle Ages, and for conquering North America, but not since. Not since, because knowledge prevents it.

      Thus, de facto, only nukes qualify. Hussein far super far from them. He was not there at all, everybody could see it. No nuclear material, no vectors, no test, etc.

      On the other hand North Korea is weaponizing its nukes, and engineering transcontinental vectors. And makes one every 5 weeks… And the leader is a certified wacko, which Hussein was not.


  4. Kevin Berger Says:

    Well, if the (non) 10th anniversary of the invasion proved anything, it’s that one should absolutely expect zero introspection, zero acknowledgement of having been wrong, and zero apologies (assuming apologies is the correct term here, of course). Obviously, this preclude having any of the people who made that war happen ever being tried in any kind of fashion, from the decision-makers to the cheerleaders – actually, the reverse has been demonstrated again and again, the few outspoken public figures against the war has paid some professional price (a recap had been made, years ago, boiling down to the anti-war journalists & the like suffering from going against the grain, while the pro-war’s careers moved along normally).
    And note that this also IMHO include a good chunk of the US public, who either do not care, or is a sore loser of sort (blaming the bloody mess in the ME on the Ottoman, the French & UK borders, the muslims, the darkies, whatever, anything and everything but the USA). IIRC, about only 1/3rd of the US public opposed the war, this figure shrinking rapidly as the war drumbeat accelerated, later grow back once denying it was a clusterfuck became increasingly harder. In contrast, the opposition to this was was massive even among the US allies (biggest demonstration in London I believe, biggest demonstrations in Italy since WWII, that kind of stuff); the US public was an absolute outlier in that case, autistic as fuck; still is, I guess.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am a keen student of US public opinion, and I believe that the love hit France took for opposing the war has not been fully recovered from. At the time, just for saying the truth, I lost all my US friends but three I can think of. And in some cases, insults flew: France had sided with Hitler, killed the Jews, a nation of cowards, etc…
      There is no public movement whatsoever towards judging the Iraq war criminals.

      And there is worse.
      Guess who is the most vociferous about Bushes’ culpability?
      Donald Trump.
      By far.
      Need I say more?
      Well the democratic candidate was for the Iraw war, and voted accordingly. So she is a criminal too. Expect Trump to attack her on that during the debates.


      • Kevin Berger Says:

        “I am a keen student of US public opinion, and I believe that the love hit France took for opposing the war has not been fully recovered from.”

        You don’t say… I might add that this masterful character assassination, the only US victory since… WWII? (or does it belong to their top-tier clandestine warfare operations resume?), has been so successful that it has poisoned France’s “globish” reputation; the “white flag, lol, surrender” as the default image.
        As for recovering, it won’t, not in the USA at least, and not any time soon, the way this libel has played on the immediate post-9/11 pant-shitting fears and sense of violation of a large part of the US public, linking Iraq and the WTC and allowing for France to become an exutory to that abject fear, by way of projection.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: