NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".
The pro-war lobby says murder is okay. That's pre-meditated murder.
Thrust of argument: Matt Dathan writes 'The perpetrators of the worst terrorist attack in British history on 7 July 2005 made a video explaining that their motive was western intervention in Muslim counties, most importantly the illegal Iraq war waged by Tony Blair and George Bush, which has resulted in the deaths of up to a million Iraqis.
But here is the despicable war criminal Blair saying yet again on the 10th anniversary of 7/7 that the massacre of 52 Londoners had nothing to do with his foreign policy'.
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Nobody opposing the war is asserting that the acts of murder were not criminal and immoral and fucked up - either those of Blair and the US and UK armies or the acts of similar criminals on a smaller scale on 7th July 2005.
I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 565.00
capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 486.20
centrica AT APPROX 145.00
directline AT APPROX 358.70
g4s AT APPROX 252.90
gkn AT APPROX 298.40
glencore AT APPROX 343.00
m&s AT APPROX 319.30
rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 839.50
rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 601.00
standardlife AT APPROX 417.90
THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.
Removal of resistance: The pro-war lobby says murder is okay.
Unification: Some of the time. The method used by the 7/7 murderers was relatively similar to surprise attacks committed on a much bigger scale by people like the UK and US - similar in terms of how the Geneva Convention judges them and the U.N. sees them, by law, according to Kofi Annan.
(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns)
previous point on the grid | next point on the grid
Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.