Is Tony Blair personally responsible for Margaret Hassan's death?

No.
For him to be personally responsible he would have to have pulled the trigger. You could argue that he was indirectly responsible but thats a whole other can of worms that I can't be bothered to open.

If he had not (personally?) decided to go to war in Iraq in the first place, then Margaret Hassan would in all likelihood still be alive now

Bush decided - Blair followed..

Hello?! Why are people like M. Hassan being kidnapped and shot? Anything to do with Tony's little war? I feel so much safer now 'we' are in Iraq 'cleaning up'.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Bush decided - Blair followed..

Blair had a choice in the matter did'nt he? (France and Germany had the strength to say no)

the person directly responsible for the death of Margaret Hassan, was whoever stood over her and shot her in the head.

It's wild speculation, but I'm guessing that wasn't Tony Blair.

Originally posted by msmouse
Blair had a choice in the matter did'nt he? (France and Germany had the strength to say no)

Yet French journalists still got kidnapped. If the UK hadn't supported USA in the war, Margaret Hassan would still be in Iraq because she's lived there for 30 years, she'd still be a westerner, and she'd still be the victim of a kidnapping. People who kidnap innocent civilians and murder them on camera aren't bothered with 'minor' technicalities like whether or not their country took part in the war.

I'm no huge fan of either Blair or Bush but this thread is just a tad sensationalist.

Sorry, I should have submitted this thread to the Sun's forum (if such exists)

Do you think the US would still have gone to war without the UK's backing?

Of course they would have, Bush had decided on that before he was even elected - it was just a matter of waiting until he could get away with it..

I take it that no blame is given to the people who did actually shoot her? No, lets blame our own instead.

Originally posted by msmouse
Sorry, I should have submitted this thread to the Sun's forum (if such exists)

Do you think the US would still have gone to war without the UK's backing?

Of course they would.

I'm no apologist for Blair for leading this country into a 'war' on the basis of a complete tissue of lies, amongst other things. But you do his critics a disservice by trying focus the debate on a single murdered individual.

Margaret Hassan had well documented contempt for Blair, Bush and their ilk - so Blair's gushing tribute rings somewhat hollow.

But to insinuate that he was directly responsible for her death is far fetched.

Originally posted by msmouse
Sorry, I should have submitted this thread to the Sun's forum (if such exists)

Do you think the US would still have gone to war without the UK's backing?


Of course they would have. Obviously having the UK as support made it easier for them to make the decision to go to war, but ultimately it was inevitable, with or without UK support. Blair's influence over US foreign policy is negligible.

PS. Perhaps you should've submitted this thread to the "It's raining today, blame Blair" forum (if such exists).

For crying out loud.

I assume Blair nipped out there, pulled a gun, blindfolded this woman and shot her?

There is some total crap being spouted all over the place about Blair being to blame for this and I just cannot believe how people can draw this sort of conclusion.

Joe

OK, OK I guess this question isn’t going down too well … I’m not asking if he was directly responsible, as it was evil b******ds who should’nt be allowed to walk the earth who actually pulled the trigger. What I am asking is whether our Tone is responsible because he led us into this war - (to fulfil his own personal dream of ‘making history’?) - despite opposition from many MPs and a large proportion of the British population.

I don’t really think the US would have dared to go it alone without the UK’s backing, no matter how much George Bush wanted to. They needed at least one major ally, no matter how much we matter to them on other foreign policy issues

Perhaps ultimately responsible may be a better phrase? Anyway painfull as this is to admit no he is not either personally or ultimately responsible for the death of Margaret Hassan - he is however one of the factors in producing the environment which precipitated this event. However no-one is ultimately responsible for the death apart from the person who pulled the trigger...

This is not intended to be a debate about the rights and wrongs of us going into this war in the first place (I’m sure there is a whole other thread for that...). I am just so appalled about the brutal treatment of innocent victims, am sick of Blairs holier than though attitude, and think the deaths of these people should be on his conscience (if he’s got one)

I guess this all boils down to: If Tony Blair did'nt exist would Margeret Hassan still be alive?

Originally posted by ArtBear
I guess this all boils down to: If Tony Blair did'nt exist would Margeret Hassan still be alive?

Answer: no, she still wouldn't be.

How do you know?

Originally posted by ArtBear
How do you know?


Because the majority of the Government still supported the war, the opposition still supported the war, so the UK would still have supported the USA in going to war in Iraq (though I think the US would've gone to war with or without UK support anyway, so it's quite irrelevant really).

I really don’t think the US would have gone to war without the UK’s backing. Why do you think Tony Blair was chosen to be the first British Prime Minister to receive the Congressional Medal of Honour (or whatever it’s called)? Thatcher never got that, despite her ‘romance’ with Reagan.

TB’s presidential style of leadership, coupled with his ‘honest Tony’ persona (which held water until the 45 minute claim was dissed) played a crucial part in influencing the Government and British public to support the war. Dissenters within the cabinet were forced out, whilst some cabinet ministers perhaps chose to remain silent out of political expediency. TB is a neo-conservatist at heart, and that’s why he gets on so well with George Bush. Not all those at the top end of Government share his views, and a different leader may well have chosen to maintain the same position as the UN and central Europe.

Originally posted by msmouse
I am just so appalled about the brutal treatment of innocent victims, am sick of Blairs holier than though attitude, and think the deaths of these people should be on his conscience (if he’s got one)

Yes. I agree with all of that. But If I'm honest, I don't think he's a robot either, and he will be more aware of the number and manner of deaths in Iraq than we can ever be. I don't envy him for what he knows, but I have lost what respect I had for him as a politician, a leader and a member of the human race. On the other hand, I am not going to ignore the overriding realpolitik going on - this is part of a long standing jostling for influence, power and resources in a world of growing demand and finite resources. As things get scarcer, they become more profitable, and the enterprises that exploit them become less "risk averse".

In terms of Tony's conscience. I feel it is unfair (a little) to mention Bigley, Hassan and the other unfortunates, without of course the 100,000 or so (although the coalition "isn't counting") iraqi civilian deaths. The numbers baffle me. Every time I try to imagine 100,000 dead bodies, my imagination bottles out. I think the US would have at least started some military action aimed at toppling Saddam and installing an ex-CIA operative as the "caretaker prime minister" (Allawi). "What If" scenarios aren't very revealing in huge events with billions of imponerable variables at work.

Any leader knows that by committing their forces to armed combat, people will die - combatants and civilians alike. There will often be friendly fire incidents, misidentification of targets, war crimes. And people will die wholesale.

So they have to be pretty sure of what they are doing. Tony Blair's mechanism of leadership saw to the fact that only information that chimed with his obvious intentions to back the USA was ever presented to him. He may well have known that the intelligence was bunk, but that is unproveable I think. A bombshell if not.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I feel it is unfair (a little) to mention Bigley, Hassan and the other unfortunates, without of course the 100,000 or so (although the coalition "isn't counting") iraqi civilian deaths.

I count Iraqi civilians to be just as much innocent victims of this brutal and pointless war. However, their deaths don't appear to arouse much emotion in the minds of the UK population, unlike the tragic fate of individuals like Ken Bigley and Margaret Hassan.

How many Iraqi lives is one westerner's life worth?

Originally posted by msmouse
Is Tony Blair personally responsible for Margaret Hassan's death?

Are you serious?

For the people that voted yes.. Care to put down the OK! magazine, and explain why?

Originally posted by GazB
Are you serious?

For the people that voted yes.. Care to put down the OK! magazine, and explain why?

See above for details...

Like Phan said it's impossible to know what would have happened if Blair had been against it - there are umpteen variables to consider. It's just not possible.

Either way Margaret Hassan would probably have still been in Iraq as she lived there and there's also a good chance Bigley would have still gone out there. At which point they are in a war zone and anything can happen.

I think the press are as responsible as anyone, these people are being kidnapped to get the kidnappers publicity, as long as the media keep giving them that they will keep doing it.

It might be hard to do, but if there is no reporting of the next kidnapping it will become pointless to do it.

Originally posted by msmouse
I count Iraqi civilians to be just as much innocent victims of this brutal and pointless war. However, their deaths don't appear to arouse much emotion in the minds of the UK population, unlike the tragic fate of individuals like Ken Bigley and Margaret Hassan.

How many Iraqi lives is one westerner's life worth?

The focus on individuals from UK (although Hassan considered herself an Iraqi) over the fate of uncounted thousands of "the enemy" is a feature of any national mass media at a time of conflict. This effect is even more pronounced in the US I believe. It's to be criticised, but the emphasis should be on the use of news like this to provide political justifications for domestic asuuagement.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
the emphasis should be on the use of news like this to provide political justifications for domestic asuuagement.

Come again?

BTW the press would'nt have anything to report if TB was not instrumental in allowing this war to happen in the first place

For people in the country as a whole to come to terms with the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing catastrophe, and to put it to the back of their mind, well amplified reports of emotively charged and barbaric executions can result in a feeling of righteous superiority that make the whole war a bit easier to live with. (and then you can begin enjoying the improved public services instead of worrying about a hundred thousand civilian dead in a country a long way away). So perhaps it's no surprise that the government and the sympathetic media will dwell on these cases more than the other, innumerable and narrativeless, war dead.

As for "if TB was not instrumental in allowing this war to happen". Like I posted earlier, I don't believe its possible to meaningfully ask or answer that question, there are too many impnderables.

Was he ever in a position to prevent the war? Because if his 'crime' is inaction ("allowing the war to happen") then he definitely isn't personally reponsible for Margaret Hassan's death, even by your own definition. I would say he was not in the position to stop the war, even if his frantic diplomacy ahead of the aborted SC motion seemed sincere. The US administration needed "another pearl harbour" and they got it. And they used it. Tony Blair is a bit part player, sitting on GWB's soldier like a trained monkey (in the cartoonist's vernacular). Of course they throw him a peanut now and again.

Margaret Thatcher didn't let Ronnie use her as a doormat. The same cannot be said for Blair.

(I would say that blair is more of a wet paleoconservative, than a neoconservative incidentally.)

I don't believe TB unilaterally took us into war against Iraq.
As I recall it there was an open vote in the house of commons - it was a collective decision. Democracy in action.
So, like it or not, we are all responsible.

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme
I don't believe TB unilaterally took us into war against Iraq.
As I recall it there was an open vote in the house of commons - it was a collective decision. Democracy in action.
So, like it or not, we are all responsible.

Nomme

I believe the executive decision was made in camera and the intelligence to justify it was presented to a parliamentary labour party and then parliament itself.

Many MPs on the labour benches eagerly grabbed at these fig leaves to let them vote with their consciences and further their own careers. Democracy in action? Only the Lib Dems expressed any disquiet whatsoever.

We failed to stop our government going to war, and in that way we are responsible.

For gods sake.Theres a war on ,these people knew that and went there(or stayed there) through their own personal choice, they could have gotten out. While my heart goes out to them and thier families ,and what happened to them was barbaric the decision to stay was their own.they knew the risks envolved.


This war is mostly terrorism,and i believe our country would have been next on the list. A stand had to be made.It has proved costley in many things ,including human lives.But these executions only enforce the need for us to protect ourselves from acts of terrorism. And YES the US would have gone to war without us.Lets not forget the all the innocents that have lost there lives in our countries over the years.And nobody was a bigger threat to the Iraqi people than MR.SADDAM HUSSAIN himsef.Thats where you should start laying the blame.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I believe the executive decision was made in camera and the intelligence to justify it was presented to a parliamentary labour party and then parliament itself.


Sounds very probable.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Many MPs on the labour benches eagerly grabbed at these fig leaves to let them vote with their consciences and further their own careers. Democracy in action? Only the Lib Dems expressed any disquiet whatsoever.
[/B]
''fig leaves"?? - do you mean 'olive branches'?
Anyway, maybe it was only the Lib Dems as a party, but I can certainly recall some labour party members who weren't happy about it.
It was still a open vote.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
We failed to stop our government going to war, and in that way we are responsible. [/B]

Yup, and making TB a scapegoat won't change that.

Nomme

Originally posted by tattoo
For gods sake.Theres a war on ,these people knew that and went there(or stayed there) through their own personal choice, they could have gotten out. While my heart goes out to them and thier families ,and what happened to them was barbaric the decision to stay was their own.they knew the risks envolved.


This war is mostly terrorism,and i believe our country would have been next on the list. A stand had to be made.It has proved costley in many things ,including human lives.But these executions only enforce the need for us to protect ourselves from acts of terrorism. And YES the US would have gone to war without us.Lets not forget the all the innocents that have lost there lives in our countries over the years.And nobody was a bigger threat to the Iraqi people than MR.SADDAM HUSSAIN himsef.Thats where you should start laying the blame.

Have you been listening to the US state department? Saddam was an anti-terrorist, and was liberally funded to stem the "spread of radical islamic groups and terrorists".

Sure - he ballsed up thinking his claims on Kuwait would be tolerated after being a good boy for such a long time, fighting a war against Iran etc. And then his country was bombed for the next 10 years. 10 Years that Maragaret Hassan spent in Iraq, helping her people (she was an Iraqi), and holding the leaders of the "civilised" world in contempt for the sanctions that made life millions of iraqis a constant hardship, and ensured that tens of thousands remained in constant pain. And an infant mortality rate that shot through the roof.

And then, the US provoked a fight over the creaking inspection regime, by sending in US intelligence agents as "UN inspectors", which of course resulted in the withdrawal of the inspectors (no, they weren't "thrown out").

Attempts to restart the inspection regime were only made after the US had effectively made the decision to invade - and thus when they found essentially nothing whereever they looked, the order was given to invade anyway. A simple lengthening of the inspection regime, which by this time was getting full cooperation, would have revealed this, but since WMD had absolutely nothing at all to do with this conflict, any objections on these ground were brushed aside.

The US administration has made many failed attempts to link the former Iraqi regime with 9/11 and "the new breed of global terrorism" they are fighting with The War Against Terror. This has not stopped it becoming lodged in the minds of many people through simple reptition of the allegations, which in themselves are insubstantial.

Tony Blair was either lying or credulous as hell when he said that "Saddam can keep his conventional forces, his navy if he chooses to comply... this is not about regime change this is about disarmament". (paraphrased)

Every single labour member of parliament who voted 'in favour' of the war also has a case to answer. Either their PM misled them, or they voted for it, in spite of knowing that the justification for action without a clear UN resolution or iminent threat of attack was paper thin. We are still waiting to read the basis of Lord Goldsmiths advice to the PM that the invasion was legal under international law.

No ,Its jusy my opinion, and ,while there will be a lot of people out there who dont agree with me I still believe Saddam is a nutter, who would given the chance would have turned on us next.And one of the ways to stop him was to remove him from power.

Originally posted by nomme
Sounds very probable.


''fig leaves"?? - do you mean 'olive branches'?


No, I mean the members of the PLP covered the nakedness of their ambition to curry favour with the upper echeleons of the party, with the fig leaf of the 45 minute claim that was parroted ad nauseam.

Well after reading all of that, I think msmouse got the answer they were NOT looking for.... but.. everyday should be a day at school.

Bad question = Good feedback :)

Sensational question in fact

Originally posted by tattoo
No ,Its jusy my opinion, and ,while there will be a lot of people out there who dont agree with me I still believe Saddam is a nutter, who would given the chance would have turned on us next.And one of the ways to stop him was to remove him from power.
He'd have invaded us then? The UK with it's stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons and conventional weapons?
Sadaam wanted good relations with the West for trade and to work on lifting UN sanctions. The only terrorists in Iraq were being protected by UK and US warplanes in the Northern no-fly zone..if Sadaam could have put troops in, there would have been a quick end to these people.
Nutter?No. Vicious Tyrant? Yes

No. The person responsible is the man who pulled the trigger. Despite my paleo-conservative reservations about Bush and Blair's crusading, meddling attempts to foist liberal democracy on to a "country" that was created by international idealists in the first instance, Blair cannot possibly be held to blame. If we blame Blair, we are removing the responsibility, free will or agency from the executioner. Despite how strongly the executioner and his fellow militants felt about the invasion of Iraq, they had the CHOICE not to kill Hassan. Or rather the man who held the gun did. He is responsible.
This reminds me, ironcally, of Blair's spurious "apology" to the Irish for so-called English intransigence at the time of the Potato Famine in 1846. Blair apologised on behalf of Britain. I didn't know he was there at the time! This kind of apology perpetuates the idea of inherited racial guilt [for the English]. Similarly, if we blame Blair we are engaging in twisted logic of a dangerous kind- removing agency from the murderer and attributing it to someone who did not pull the trigger.