An Alternative to Prison: Warmongering maniac sentenced to plum jobs and lots of money

The findings of the Chilcott enquiry make it very plain that Tony Blair was obscenely eager to launch a war against Iraq that was not the slightest bit necessary in terms of dealing with a clear and present danger to the country.

Indeed, as most people will not support a war unless the designated enemy can be shown to be a real threat, he invented or was a willing participant in the invention of lies about weapons of mass destruction (a wonderfully emotive epithet guaranteed to instill dread in the hearts of those citizens who believed the lie) in order to solicit the popular acquiescence without which a government cannot sustain a war.


What I am struggling to get my head around, though, is WHY was he so keen? What was the motive for starting, for God's sake, a war that destroyed an entire country and sent our own servicemen to their deaths, not to mention fuelling the spiralling hatreds that threaten to tear humanity apart?

Let us confront the sheer scale of what he did - or had others do - for a moment, even though the mind is naturally repelled. We are talking here of death and destruction visited upon people with whom we had no real quarrel on a scale comparable with a thousand Nice massacres day after day after day.

It is possible of course that Blair, like the guy behind the wheel of the truck in Nice, was just a lone nut dramatising his own psychotic impulses. It is possible that his chum, George Bush, just happened to be another lone nut who just happened to have the very same psychotic impulses to harm and destroy. That scenario places these two lunatics in a conspiratorial group of two with no other connections or co-conspirators and no influences upon their decision making oher than the insane compulsion to go on a violent rampage that would bring as much misery to as many human beings as possible.

When I say violent rampage I mean violent rampage. There are various ways to go on a violent rampage depending on your resources and whatever power you may have to order other people to do the rampaging for you. 

Thus you get the low-end maniac in Nice who hijacked a truck and used it to mow down as many people as he could before he was stopped. At the highe-end of homicidal lunacy you get a nut job who is Prime Minister of a country. He doesn't need to hijack a truck and run people over. Instead he can order aircraft to fly half across the planet to drop high explosives on large numbers of people and tear up an entire country. Both of these guys are maniacs.

Was Blair on psych meds - as was the maniac in Nice? Every perpetrator of every violent rampage was on psych meds. Psych meds are KNOWN to destroy impulse control and to set in concrete whatever psychosis the user may be suffering from. God help all of us if we have national leaders on the same antidepressants or anti-psychotic medication that drive so many people off the deep end because we may well have leaders with inhibited impulse control, inhibited empathy and psychotic purposes they can no longer control soldered into the circuitry of the brain

Or, as seems to me more likely, Blair was not acting in isolation but pursuing the agendum of persons or groups as yet unclear, persons who stood to gain from the war according to their own dark goals and purposes. Was Blair a willing accomplice of those people, was he blackmailed, threatened or promised rewards for his compliance?

We really need to pull a string and get the whole truth if all this because as yet we only have part of the story, a very incomplete picture that, I suspect, SOMEONE would very much like to remain incomplete.

So  WHO are these people and what is their agendum?

Well, one thing that strikes me is that Blair is evidently well in with the Zionist mob and this is such a string that should be pulled. Apparently, those guys are sure looking after one of their own. This brings us to another difference between the high-end and low-end maniac. The low-end maniac usually winds up dead (good) while the high-end maniac winds up being paid a fortune for after-dinner speaking or handed plum jobs by people who like the cut of his jib. This in turn sets a very bad example: when people see that the elite are rewarded in all manner of ways for blowing up and shooting lots of people, the weak-minded (or drugged|) among us might conclude that violent mayhem pays.

In 2009 for example Blair pocketed a million dollars in the form of a prize for his (try not to laugh - or cry) "leadership on the world stage". The award - or payoff? - was given by a Tel Aviv-based foundation named after the Zionist billionaire Dan David. You can read about it here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4643809/Former-Prime-Minister-Tony-Blair-wins-million-dollar-Israeli-leadership-prize.html

And now we are told that he has landed a  job "Fighting Anti-Semitism At The European Council On Tolerance And Reconciliation". This latest award of a plum job has nothing to do of course with his track record in another plum job, Peace Envoy to the Middle East, a tenure marked by death, destruction and mayhem in the Middle East.

The Zionists, of course are unlikely to be deterred by the death and destruction in the countries of the Middle East, which they have a vested interest in dismantling, and the Bush/Blair destruction of Iraq did the Zionists a few favours. But if you really are seeking tolerance and reconciliation (as opposed to getting your critics to shut up - the Zionist idea of peace and reconciliation perhaps being different to everyone else's) why give the job to a known liar with a demonstrated penchat for human conflict?

So, we do have to ask this questions: are these awards and lucrative appointments, given to a known war criminal of utterly shredded credibility, simply payoff for services rendered?

And does this in turn point us in the direction of whose interests he was looking after when he got the Iraq war started?