May 16, 2008

Richard Dearlove Confronted on Participating in a War Crime

Follow-up to Stop terrorising us, Richard Dearlove from Jack's blog


- 2 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. Tom Bish

    They just look stupid and act in a rude manner. That was hardly a confrontation; revolt properly or shut up. As for being a respectable “citizen”, we do not live in a republic and if we are to be citizens surely that starts with basic civic decency, respect and freedom of carriage not a repugnant sophomoric attempts at political agitation. The fact that this behaviour is supposedly non-violent (and I think it IS violent) does not immediately render it democratic or consonant with liberal -republican principles which is what I assume these adolescents seek to defend in light of the governments supposed transgressions.

    19 May 2008, 20:22

  2. Yo “bish”, hope revision/life is going well.

    Just to preface my defence of this group with an acknowledgement that this stunt lacked a full explanation of its context and could have been tidier. I personally would not take the risk of these louder methods of confrontation, but it’s a personal preference. I do think that there is value to insistently pursuing men such as Dearlove with questions, as by virtue of institutional corruption and complacence he has got away with an outrageous scam.

    How was it not a confrontation? They confronted Dearlove with information and questions pertaining to his comments in the leaked Downing Street Memo and his role in the compilation of the “dodgy dossier”. I’m not sure I follow your objection that on the one hand it’s not enough of a confrontation (“revolt properly or shut up”) and on the other it was “violent”.

    It wasn’t a violent confrontation. The attempted citizen’s arrest involved, at its most physical, one guy stepping in front of Dearlove to prevent him getting in the car – and he was moved aside. They alerted the local police where they would be, what they were intending to do and what grounds they had for arrest.

    Unfortunately the full context of the confrontation is not apparent in the video – a previous attempt to ask Dearlove pertinent questions in a Q&A was met with a refusal to answer on all accounts (and I don’t mean avoiding the question – it was a literal refusal) – I can’t find the video of this on youtube anymore. Dearlove’s speech was a bit of a one-off, he doesn’t really do public appearances. So these people turned up at a private talk he was giving to the Royal Institute of International Affairs to outline how Dearlove had broken the law. I’m not sure they were expecting to be lucky enough to be able to quiz him on the street in the way that they were, so they gave a lecture through a bullhorn. Yeah, it’s also a stunt, and fair enough, you weren’t impressed. It’s not undemocratic as you suggest though.

    Your comment has me split. On the one hand, I think it is right, even crucial, to confront people like this, who have knowingly participated in a fraud which had led to the deaths of a million Iraqis and thousands of troops (as well as ironically endangering national security), especially someone who was comfortably veiled by the secrecy of the intelligence community during his time as head of MI6 and is still left alone by the mainstream media. You refer to the government’s “supposed” transgressions as if their culpability is in doubt, when it is real and very serious. On the other hand, I have to concede that as a PR stunt, these guys have failed, since your reaction is that they “look stupid and act in a rude manner” and it is “repugnant” and “sophomoric”.

    I appreciate your distaste for the methods used here but I disagree that they are dissonant with liberal-republican/democratic principles.

    We must go for a drink and “real talk”, maybe after exams – before I go back for the Wimbledon Tennis job.

    With your trifling ass meltin’,

    Jack

    20 May 2008, 00:58


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

Jack Morgan's blog


The primary purpose of this blog is to syndicate information that is largely excluded from, or spun by, the increasingly consolidated corporate media.


I believe the “War on Terror” is a synthetic construct. It is part of a long term agenda of the political/corporate elites to aggressively consolidate global control. “War on Drugs” deja-vu.


I support a new criminal investigation into the events of 9/11. The previous investigation avoided hundreds of known pieces of evidence contradicting the government’s account – for example, the fact that the head of Pakistani intelligence funded the alleged lead hijacker, and the fact that World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed at 5.20 pm in the exact manner of a controlled demolition.

Disclaimer: I often paste articles from other websites but this does not imply that I am affiliated with them or that I agree with the totality of their content.

Blog archive

Loading…

Most recent comments

  • …I've never wanted you more! by on this entry
  • "Recording my IP is the sort of thing you seem to be very much against. I'm not worried by it, just … by on this entry
  • I watched the program last night. Your comments add to my unease with the reporting and representati… by CT on this entry
  • I watched this last night. It was all very subtle, but one or two moments really demonstrated the bi… by londonbob on this entry
  • Good analysis. There are perhaps a few things to add that the program dealt with badly. The first is… by redadare on this entry

Search this blog

9/11 Research

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Do Not Submit to the National Identity Register

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's Blog

Craig Murray's Blog

Greg Palast's Website

Peace Strike

We Are Change UK

May 2008

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Apr |  Today  | Jun
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31   
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXX