NationStates Jolt Archive

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has left the G8 meeting to take direct control in wake of the London bombings.

G8 leaders have utterly condemned the attacks.

"We will not allow violence to change our society nor our values," Blair said, stressing that the G8 summit would continue under the chairmanship of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. "We will continue our deliberations in the interests of a better world," Blair added. "

All other issues have now taken a back seat to terrorism at the G8 summit.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050707-094528-4607r

Yep,

Goodbye discussion on our environmental problems, goodbye discussion on the African problem/Live 8. Hello to war on terrorism.

Al-Queada must hate African and want all of us to fry because the sun to chose this timing.

Bush is gonna be happy.

load your rifles, UK. let's go hunting.

And I don't think it's Islam, per se, that's the problem... I concur with the thoughts of others here that it's the bad ones who need to be brought to justice.

load your rifles, UK. let's go hunting.

And I don't think it's Islam, per se, that's the problem... I concur with the thoughts of others here that it's the bad ones who need to be brought to justice.
I agree.
Now I seem to be in trouble due to this. They found an article in which I wrote about an coming attack on London. I got to go and report to some MP's and intell people at battalion. I forgot that I wrote that. I write lots of stuff from my dreams. See, this is why I am really don't like talking my dreams, even the ones that seem to happen. Now they're probably going to try a dissect my brain for research.
I know, I'll just deny writing it and deny ever having dreams.

I'm back. Stupid jokesters had me going.
For a moment there I was thinking "holy shit" and trying to figure a way out.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has left the G8 meeting to take direct control in wake of the London bombings.

G8 leaders have utterly condemned the attacks.

"We will not allow violence to change our society nor our values," Blair said, stressing that the G8 summit would continue under the chairmanship of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. "We will continue our deliberations in the interests of a better world," Blair added. "

All other issues have now taken a back seat to terrorism at the G8 summit.

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050707-094528-4607r

It would seem that way. The focus shifts from the Middle East for the first time in 4 years and we appear to actually be moving on from 9/11 and look what happens. God I bet Geldof is pissed.
:sigh: Iran here we come...

It would seem that way. The focus shifts from the Middle East for the first time in 4 years and we appear to actually be moving on from 9/11 and look what happens. God I bet Geldof is pissed.
:sigh: Iran here we come...
Who is Geldof?

I agree.
Now I seem to be in trouble due to this. They found an article in which I wrote about an coming attack on London. I got to go and report to some MP's and intell people at battalion. I forgot that I wrote that. I write lots of stuff from my dreams. See, this is why I am really don't like talking my dreams, even the ones that seem to happen. Now they're probably going to try a dissect my brain for research.
I know, I'll just deny writing it and deny ever having dreams.

Na. They haven't arrested anyone for witchcraft in England since WWII.

Al-Queada must hate African and want all of us to fry because the sun to chose this timing.

i suspect they actually are trying to hog the spotlight. sept. 11th was timed nicely to cause the cancellation of what was shaping up to be the largest anti-neoliberal protest yet in dc. this wild conjecture totally proves that the fundies hate anything that might do some good in the world and know that terrorist attacks are good at changing the focus back to mindless destruction from the powers that be. you're either with us, or with bush and the terrorists.

i suspect they actually are trying to hog the spotlight. sept. 11th was timed nicely to cause the cancellation of what was shaping up to be the largest anti-neoliberal protest yet in dc. this wild conjecture totally proves that the fundies hate anything that might do some good in the world and know that terrorist attacks are good at changing the focus back to mindless destruction from the powers that be. you're either with us, or with bush and the terrorists.
You hate Bush so much that you use him to condone terrorism. I shall remember to pray that God curses you and your children for time immemorial for your support of those slaughter innocents. You not fit to hold any public office nor are you fit to even sit on a jury in judgement of others.
I don't give a shit what you think of Bush. You don't have the right to kill other people just because you don't like Bush. No right at all.

Well, this was the first G8 meeting where terrorism was not even on the agenda.
They have agreed that they will go back to discussing Africa and global warming tommorrow, to show Al Qaeda that they will not be detered from making the world a better place than what Al Qaeda wants to do with it.

well no offense, but if i had to make a choice between the safety and welfare of the British public over Africa.. i would pick Britain any day of the week.

G8 is no where near as important as picking up the pieces of this terroist attack on British Soil in my opinion

well thats good, the best way to make friends is by fixing there house not blowing the shit out of it.

You hate Bush so much that you use him to condone terrorism. I shall remember to pray that God curses you and your children for time immemorial for your support of those slaughter innocents. You not fit to hold any public office nor are you fit to even sit on a jury in judgement of others.
I don't give a shit what you think of Bush. You don't have the right to kill other people just because you don't like Bush. No right at all.

? You need to read more carefully in the future man...these kneejerk denouciations are getting tiresome. 'specially because in this case its not even warranted.

They equated Bush and Terrorists are being two aspects of the same war, and contrasted it with showing that there is a world beyond that war, a world concerned with things other than war. Sheesh. Read before you activate your "flame on" power.

All other issues have now taken a back seat to terrorism at the G8 summit.

No, you're wrong and so is your source.

The G8 leaders sat through talks today without Blair, and rumor from the BBC says President Bush has acknowledged that global warming is not only real but something we must face.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4662297.stm

? You need to read more carefully in the future man...these kneejerk denouciations are getting tiresome. 'specially because in this case its not even warranted.

They equated Bush and Terrorists are being two aspects of the same war, and contrasted it with showing that there is a world beyond that war, a world concerned with things other than war. Sheesh. Read before you activate your "flame on" power.
He was obscenely implying that Bush was responsible for the London attacks. That Brits deserved to die for having Bush in their country. I fail to see how any one would not see that as very offensive and very cold hearted.

No, you're wrong and so is your source.

The G8 leaders sat through talks today without Blair, and rumor from the BBC says President Bush has acknowledged that global warming is not only real but something we must face.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4662297.stm
Actually, today they were divereted to discussing terrorism, which was not on the agenda. Tommorrow they will return to the regular schedule of global warming and africa.

Also, Bush acknowledged on Monday that global warming was a problem. It was not done today. He was supposed to present his proposal today, a proposal that was already released to the public on Monday.

And you might want to read the lead paragraph in your link:

"The G8 leaders are expected to hit the ground running as they return to their summit discussions, after a day much disrupted by the London terror attacks.

On the day of the attacks, terrorism was the subject of the G8 meeting. In fact they were discussing it just as the attacks went off.

There is a video on MSNBC of Blair's response, and he said he would be back at the G8 summit this evening.

Actually, today they were divereted to discussing terrorism, which was not on the agenda. Tommorrow they will return to the regular schedule of global warming and africa.

Of course they talked about terrorism, but I hardly think that was the only thing they talked about today. Considering the British resolve and Blair returning to the summit so quickly, it makes sense to move on without him and catch him up later. That's what the news is reporting, anyways.

Also, Bush acknowledged on Monday that global warming was a problem. It was not done today. He was supposed to present his proposal today, a proposal that was already released to the public on Monday.

That's not what the BBC and MSNBC are reporting, but I'm not going to say you're wrong, this is what I heard with my own ears. The Bush administration said today he came to the conclusion and the proposal wasn't going to be released until later this week regardless of the terrorist attacks.

There is a video on MSNBC of Blair's response, and he said he would be back at the G8 summit this evening.

He's already back in Gleneagles. They showed him arrive a few hours ago.

There is a video on MSNBC of Blair's response, and he said he would be back at the G8 summit this evening.
It would be the only proper response. One of the AQ's goals is to stop the progress being made at G8.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8460171/

He was obscenely implying that Bush was responsible for the London attacks. That Brits deserved to die for having Bush in their country. I fail to see how any one would not see that as very offensive and very cold hearted.

He said no such thing. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

He was obscenely implying that Bush was responsible for the London attacks. That Brits deserved to die for having Bush in their country. I fail to see how any one would not see that as very offensive and very cold hearted.

Perhaps you are much better at reading between the lines than I am. 'cause I've read that passage about 10 times and I see nothing of the sort. I see just what I said. A comparison between a world at war and a world beyond that war. I saw no such implications of Bush being responsible or about British people deserving the attacks.

I did see mention that the attackers themselves were shamelessly trying to destroy all aspects of good in the world, and were desperately trying to shift focus back to their mindless destruction...but I didn't see anything about deserving to die or the responsibility being Bush's...

Again, perhaps you're better at reading deep into a post and finding the specific meaning of the words. But I do not see what you do.

It would be the only proper response. One of the AQ's goals is to stop the progress being made at G8.

There's no confirmation that Al-Qaeda was responsible for this. In all likelihood, they were, but right now they only have the word of some fringe group, not the organization themselves.

He said no such thing. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Seems pretty certain to me that Free Soviets was strongly implying that having a part in either side of the current conflict is equally as bad. Well, it's not like one can help it, see, because we can't all go to some magical safe not-hated island and not worry about anything there. There's no ay not to be involved.

There is a video on MSNBC of Blair's response, and he said he would be back at the G8 summit this evening.

He's already back.

Seems pretty certain to me that Free Soviets was strongly implying that having a part in either side of the current conflict is equally as bad. Well, it's not like one can help it, see, because we can't all go to some magical safe not-hated island and not worry about anything there. There's no ay not to be involved.

Perhaps. But Whittier is assaulting Free Soviets for claiming that Bush was RESPONSIBLE for the London bombings. Which is entirely untrue.

You hate Bush so much that you use him to condone terrorism.

you are going to have to explain that one to me. even if you take my post as being entirely serious, i did no such thing. but come on, "this wild conjecture totally proves..." - do people commonly say such things when they are being fully serious in your dialect of english?

Of course they talked about terrorism, but I hardly think that was the only thing they talked about today. Considering the British resolve and Blair returning to the summit so quickly, it makes sense to move on without him and catch him up later. That's what the news is reporting, anyways.



That's not what the BBC and MSNBC are reporting, but I'm not going to say you're wrong, this is what I heard with my own ears. The Bush administration said today he came to the conclusion and the proposal wasn't going to be released until later this week regardless of the terrorist attacks.



He's already back in Gleneagles. They showed him arrive a few hours ago.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8460171/

found it here, the statement was made on Tuesday, not Monday.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9210869

"Bush, in an interview with Britain's ITV television Monday, renewed his insistence that Washington would not sign Kyoto or any similar deals limiting gas emissions. Still, he described climate change as "a significant, long-term issue that we've got to deal with" and acknowledged that human activity is "to some extent" to blame. "My hope is — and I think the hope of Tony Blair is — to move beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on foreign sources of oil," Bush said."

Perhaps you are much better at reading between the lines than I am. 'cause I've read that passage about 10 times and I see nothing of the sort. I see just what I said. A comparison between a world at war and a world beyond that war. I saw no such implications of Bush being responsible or about British people deserving the attacks.

I did see mention that the attackers themselves were shamelessly trying to destroy all aspects of good in the world, and were desperately trying to shift focus back to their mindless destruction...but I didn't see anything about deserving to die or the responsibility being Bush's...

Again, perhaps you're better at reading deep into a post and finding the specific meaning of the words. But I do not see what you do.
I see your point. But he should explain himself more clearly if that is what he meant.

lol. That's why I said that I was going on what I heard. Thank-you for clarifying that for me. :rolleyes:

you are going to have to explain that one to me. even if you take my post as being entirely serious, i did no such thing. but come on, "this wild conjecture totally proves..." - do people commonly say such things when they are being fully serious in your dialect of english?
I've seen too much of it on forums today and I thought that you were being one of those type of people. They piss me off. :mad: People claiming the attacks were justified by Bush's presence. I thought you were implying the same.

lol. That's why I said that I was going on what I heard. Thank-you for clarifying that for me. :rolleyes:
Well when he first made the statement, his proposal was still vague though he called for focusing on development of alternative fuels. It says they are going to wait till Friday to come out with a comprehensive plan for gw.
Hopefully, it will be better, and fairer than what is in place now. And more effective.

I've seen too much of it on forums today and I thought that you were being one of those type of people. They piss me off. :mad: People claiming the attacks were justified by Bush's presence. I thought you were implying the same.

Its understandable that you'd be angry to encounter such sentiments, they really go beyond the pale. No big worries about it. I was just pointing out that Free Soviets got the wrong end of your wrath undeservedly.

Well when he first made the statement, his proposal was still vague though he called for focusing on development of alternative fuels. It says they are going to wait till Friday to come out with a comprehensive plan for gw.
Hopefully, it will be better, and fairer than what is in place now. And more effective.

Now, see that makes sense! I was only hearing the one side of the story from the sources I was reading. We were both right. :p

Its understandable that you'd be angry to encounter such sentiments, they really go beyond the pale. No big worries about it. I was just pointing out that Free Soviets got the wrong end of your wrath undeservedly.
You're probably right. And I if that was not his intention then I apologize.

Now, see that makes sense! I was only hearing the one side of the story from the sources I was reading. We were both right. :p

This is a rare admission Tuesday ;)

Who is Geldof?

Bob Geldof. Lead singer of the Boomtown Rats and campaigner for Africa for 20 years.

This is a rare admission Tuesday ;)

Hey! I'm capable of giving credit where credit is due... sometimes... when I'm in a good mood. ;)

Hey! I'm capable of giving credit where credit is due... sometimes... when I'm in a good mood. ;)

Your in a good mood? Even rarer. :D

Your in a good mood? Even rarer. :D

You know better than most on this forum why I'm in a good mood.[/hijack]

You know better than most on this forum why I'm in a good mood.[/hijack]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_13_14.gif Now thats true http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_13_14.gif