Paying tax in the UK??? Then you're breaking the law!!

He doesn't mince his words and speaks his mind, we need more of that type of person, not spin doctors and BS merchants.

I find it very interesting what he says about Iran. The stuff about the Iotalah wanting a peaceful solution with the west and to even recognise and accept Isreals right to exist. A very different picture to what the UK/US media paint about this country.

The Ayatollah, yeah. I loved when he started to get animated and said, in reference to wiping out Israel, "never said it, never even said it" and it is the quote most bandied about at the moment. He is not pro-Iran or pro-Iraq, just pro-sense. Armed with his knowledge and straight up views, other posters will find it hard to refute what u say Hairball. Good luck!!

I guess the people killed in a war would be much happier if the war would be legal...

Meanwhile, I will keep paying my taxes, because in the HMRC offices won't understand this crusade.

Greetings

try an e-bluey, basically an email version of the bluey. You can Google e-bluey

As for the mail getting lost . No idea! (used to be a postie, but not any more)

yeah i have an ebluey account, they are quite good actually. you can attach photos to them, neat.

Me need war, me need cheapy petrol and me prefer good Afghan to Golden Triangle any day. Pipe anyone?

Except it aint cheap! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Some of you think I'm crazy by sugesting it is illeagal to pay your tax to a government who is commiting war crimes. But the number of people who are doing this is growing.



You can make a difference. 10,000 Americans withheld their taxes during the Vietnam war and that made a big difference then. You can do the same now!

I've never heard this said about the Ayatollah, but rather the President of Iran, Ahmadinejad. There are also more than one "Ayatollah" but I assume you mean the one at the head of Iran....
hairball, by your definition of genocide, ALL wars are "illegal" as to seek to win involves killing the enemy, specifically the enemy, and only the enemy. Who is likely to be only from one nationality or social group...
Neither of the two gentlemen listed above however were screaming before the invasion that they KNOW Iraq did not have WMD's. Neither had the access that is available now. I find it odd that now it is politically popular, suddenly they are "sure". Never mind the whole fine line between "they aren't there now/we haven't found anything" and "they were never there". As for no UN sanctions being broken, that's completely BS if only in respect to the no fly zone, however I agree that if you're going to let a dictator get away with it on a regular basis, you should not be surprised if he expects to do the same under the next administration.
Say what you like, but so far I remain unconvinced.

John P.

I know JohnP. You're so pro this illeagal occupation that you could be G. W. Bush himself.

As to the UN sanction breaking, if that was true, then why was Scott Ritter so out-spoken and saying it's not true? He was the best quallified to say this and he did on a regular basis. If it was true, why didn't the US go back to the UN to get another resolution that would have made your (Bush) war leagal. I'll answer that one for you. The US knew that there was no evidence and therefore wouldn't have got the green light. Like Scott Ritter points out, the sanctions had done thier job by the end of the first gulf war, and the only purpose they were serving was to starve the population.

I'm going to go to the shops and buy a Snickers bar. I won't have any problem being able to afford the extra large Snickers Duo because I will refuse to pay the 17.5% VAT. I'm sure the shopkeeper will agree with me because he's a Muslim.

A recent PEACEFUL demo!

friction.tv/ftv_debate.php?debate_id=3384