• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Britain's Lord Nazir Ahmed Offers £10 Million Bounty for Obama, Bush

Memri is not a reliable source of information. It reports only the news which reflects poorly on Arabs (or in this case Pakistanis) or others of a Muslim persuasion. they trawl the press to cherry-pick quotes then present them in the worst possible light. If it helps Israel politically, then that works for them too, since they were established by an Israeli intelligence Colonel.

What did they get wrong, in this case?
 
He probably said more or less what he is reported to have said in the link Andalablue gave

I did not offer a bounty. I said that there have been war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and those people who have got strong allegations against them - George W Bush and Tony Blair have been involved in illegal wars and should be brought to justice.

"I do not think there's anything wrong with that."

BBC News - Peer suspended after bounty claim

and it has gone the rounds of chinese whispers and exaggerations.
 
And that wiki link tells us what, exactly? What light does it shed on this story? Nada.

You're attacking them as a source, insinuating they may be lying. Why? What reason do you have to think they would, especially now that you know more about them?

Why is it that you want to disbelieve he said this? At this point, it's pretty obvious that you do.
 
I'm sure the Labour Party investigation will discover whether or not there is any evidence that he really did offer the bounty.

and in a related development, the foxes have been put in charge of investigating a series of missing chickens......
 
Islamist = automatic defense by British posters here.

always.
 
and in a related development, the foxes have been put in charge of investigating a series of missing chickens......

You're right, by invading Iraq and colluding with authoritarian regimes across the Middle East they provided a P.R boost to Islamic extremists everywhere. Surely they must be in cahoots.
 
The Express Tribune story had very specific quotes, which don't bespeak of "whispers" and "exaggerations."

I am sure it does not. That was my guess as to the situation. The Express however like the Mail and sometimes the Telegraph are very prone to reporting such distortions without waititng to check for accuracy.

His apparent account in the BBC appears more realistic to me.
 
It could also be a simple translation issue.. would not be the first time.

Saying that though, he does have a point about the hypocrisy aspect on the 10 million dollar bounty put out by the US...
 
You're right, by invading Iraq and colluding with authoritarian regimes across the Middle East they provided a P.R boost to Islamic extremists everywhere. Surely they must be in cahoots.

The need to support Islamic extremism is simply irresistible with you folks, isn't it?
 
So what if it's true? Fair is fair. What I am curious about is why a member of our closest ally's government is so eager to declare himself our enemy-- and why his constituents would elect him in such a case.

If a politician in the US declared a bounty on prominent British officials, I can guarantee that he would lose his next election.

Frankly, I suspect they are an ally in name only, and mostly for the sake of monetary and military advantage. As for your second question, you would need to look at the cultural and religious mindset of the overall populations of the US and Pakistan in comparison. Islam is a religion in which politics, law, and personal practice are barely discernible. The religion dominates most factets of daily life. In the US, many people may practice religion, but the practice is somewhat separated from political life, and is a means for mostly personal growth and/or socialization.
 
So what if it's true? Fair is fair. What I am curious about is why a member of our closest ally's government is so eager to declare himself our enemy-- and why his constituents would elect him in such a case.

If a politician in the US declared a bounty on prominent British officials, I can guarantee that he would lose his next election.

Members of the House of Lords are not elected by anybody. It's one of those quaint British traditions where they feel they have to pretend these parasites have some purpose.
 
Memri is not a reliable source of information. It reports only the news which reflects poorly on Arabs (or in this case Pakistanis) or others of a Muslim persuasion. they trawl the press to cherry-pick quotes then present them in the worst possible light. If it helps Israel politically, then that works for them too, since they were established by an Israeli intelligence Colonel.

And the usual cast of suspects races to the defense of anybody engaging in vile, anti-American actions. As predictable as the sun rising in the East.
 
You're attacking them as a source, insinuating they may be lying. Why? What reason do you have to think they would, especially now that you know more about them?

Why is it that you want to disbelieve he said this? At this point, it's pretty obvious that you do.

If you read any of the middle east or European threads you would know the answer to this one.
 
It could also be a simple translation issue.. would not be the first time.

Saying that though, he does have a point about the hypocrisy aspect on the 10 million dollar bounty put out by the US...

No, he doesn't. That's a stupid analogy, and you know it.
 
The need to support Islamic extremism is simply irresistible with you folks, isn't it?

I's a knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of Islamic extremism. They simply can't help it.
 
And the usual cast of suspects races to the defense of anybody engaging in vile, anti-American actions. As predictable as the sun rising in the East.

Wouldn't be nice if once, just once one of the British posters would react to such an Islamist call to murder by saying a simple "Man, is that ever effed up?!"

But what do they actually do, each and every one in this thread and everywhere else?.........defend, defend, defend.
 
I don't see why I should have to risk my life for leaders I don't want that perpetuate human rights abuses.

I think that Presidents of the United States should be just as afraid of the consequences of human rights abuses and war crimes as the leader of any other country.
You shouldnt. The military does. Our rules are in place to prevent anarchy and a military overthrow of governors and leaders we 'dont like'. You cant join and provide honorable and faithful service under one president but decide you dont want to play just because a different president with different ideals and values is elected. So...again..very correct. YOU shouldnt join the military. Those that do...you have 1 opportunity every four years to say 'no'.
 
The need to support Islamic extremism is simply irresistible with you folks, isn't it?

Please point out where i have done so. I merely said that the policies I mentioned have provided a boost to Islamic extremism across the world (as many high profile individuals in both British and American intelligence have pointed out). I don't recall saying this was a good thing and certainly do not believe it to be so. And if he is defending this person then it certainly is effed up but im withholding judgement for now. Possibly he's simply pointing out double standards where the U.S and UK brake the law, which is fair enough imo. Regardless the Labour Party are innocent here.
 
Last edited:
You shouldnt. The military does. Our rules are in place to prevent anarchy and a military overthrow of governors and leaders we 'dont like'. You cant join and provide honorable and faithful service under one president but decide you dont want to play just because a different president with different ideals and values is elected. So...again..very correct. YOU shouldnt join the military. Those that do...you have 1 opportunity every four years to say 'no'.

Constitutionally speaking if the president is ordering them to disobey the law (including the UN charter which counts as part of the constitution ,as a treaty that the U.S is a signatory to) then they have the right to disobey orders.
 
Just been listening to Lord Ahmed on News 24. He said he never had an interview with that paper and there were plenty of other papers there and none of them suggested he said the OP. Further he said there is a tape of what he said so tough luck he can show he did not say this. He is quite gobsmacked at the way people have chosen to believe this without checking it was correct first.
 
Constitutionally speaking if the president is ordering them to disobey the law (including the UN charter which counts as part of the constitution ,as a treaty that the U.S is a signatory to) then they have the right to disobey orders.

The UN Charter does not, and will never, supercede the Constitution of the United States or the laws. Unlike you in Europe, we will not turn our sovereignty over to a pack of foreigners.
 
Just been listening to Lord Ahmed on News 24. He said he never had an interview with that paper and there were plenty of other papers there and none of them suggested he said the OP. Further he said there is a tape of what he said so tough luck he can show he did not say this. He is quite gobsmacked at the way people have chosen to believe this without checking it was correct first.

Well, considering the source and the location, it still seems very believable to everybody except the confirmed anti-American Islamic extremist bunch.

I'm sure the Labour Party 'investigation' will completely exonerate him however.
 
Last edited:
Constitutionally speaking if the president is ordering them to disobey the law (including the UN charter which counts as part of the constitution ,as a treaty that the U.S is a signatory to) then they have the right to disobey orders.
Except its all very relative, isnt it? Was Bush a 'war criminal' for detaining people at GITMO? IS Obama?
 
Back
Top Bottom