PDA

View Full Version : [Moderated] Views on George Galloway.


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Marc39
16th October 2009, 03:42 PM
Galloway. What a guy. :cool: Always speaking up for the people. The zionist propegandists in this thread are getting quite tiring.

Yeah, a real humanitarian.

Stout
16th October 2009, 03:45 PM
Galloway. What a guy. :cool: Always speaking up for the people. The zionist propegandists in this thread are getting quite tiring.

Maybe you'd prefer a forum where ALL discussion of the IvP issue is manipulated so that "zionist propegandists" [sic] are shouted down and proper discussion is outlawed under the threat of banning for politically incorrect thought.

Where Galloway is hailed as a hero and a victim.
Where the evils of Hamas are swept under the rug.
Where the Goldstone report is thought of as justice.
Where the one state solution is THE ONLY solution.
Where charges of colonialism and imperialism are regularly leveled against Israel.

If so, then PM me and I can set you up.

:)

Undesired Walrus
16th October 2009, 03:50 PM
Galloway. What a guy. :cool: Always speaking up for the people. The zionist propegandists in this thread are getting quite tiring.

Zeuzzz, why did Galloway support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Marc39
16th October 2009, 03:57 PM
Maybe you'd prefer a forum where ALL discussion of the IvP issue is manipulated so that "zionist propegandists" [sic] are shouted down and proper discussion is outlawed under the threat of banning for politically incorrect thought.

Where Galloway is hailed as a hero and a victim.
Where the evils of Hamas are swept under the rug.
Where the Goldstone report is thought of as justice.
Where the one state solution is THE ONLY solution.
Where charges of colonialism and imperialism are regularly leveled against Israel.

If so, then PM me and I can set you up.

:)

The irony is that given the imposition of Sharia law in Gaza, Galloway, a non-Muslim, would be forced to live as a dhimmi in Gaza, his civil liberties nearly completely eliminated.

WildCat
16th October 2009, 05:41 PM
Zeuzzz, why did Galloway support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
I'll go ahead and guess because back then he was just anti-west, and hadn't yet converted to Islam.

Now he's still anti-west but also a Muslim, so he sides with anti-west Muslims.

He's as deep as a kiddie pool.

Pardalis
16th October 2009, 09:50 PM
The irony is that given the imposition of Sharia law in Gaza, Galloway, a non-Muslim, would be forced to live as a dhimmi in Gaza, his civil liberties nearly completely eliminated.

He's got cash and he is opportunistic, he'll come around.

Tin Foil Timothy
16th October 2009, 10:07 PM
Nothing would entertain me more than a bunch of Zionist Atrocity Deniers going head to head in a debate with George Galloway. He would easily demolish them like shooting fish in a barrel.

WildCat
16th October 2009, 10:11 PM
The irony is that given the imposition of Sharia law in Gaza, Galloway, a non-Muslim, would be forced to live as a dhimmi in Gaza, his civil liberties nearly completely eliminated.
Galloway is Muslim.

Tin Foil Timothy
16th October 2009, 10:33 PM
Galloway is Muslim.

Actually Galloway is a Roman Catholic. Although that's no better then Islam or other sects of the Abrahamic Cults.

To say Galloway is a Muslim is complete nonsense and is running along the same lines as the neocon/Zionist binary thinking of asserting than anyone not aligned to political group A must be aligned to political group B/.

portlandatheist
16th October 2009, 10:40 PM
Nothing would entertain me more than a bunch of Zionist Atrocity Deniers going head to head in a debate with George Galloway. He would easily demolish them like shooting fish in a barrel.

For your viewing pleasure:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6804714963382152969#

WildCat
16th October 2009, 10:42 PM
Actually Galloway is a Roman Catholic. Although that's no better then Islam or other sects of the Abrahamic Cults.

To say Galloway is a Muslim is complete nonsense and is running along the same lines as the neocon/Zionist binary thinking of asserting than anyone not aligned to political group A must be aligned to political group B/.
Thought I read it somewhere once. No matter, it really doesn't matter. There's plenty of proof in this thread that he's a liar and an all-around asshat. And that's the important thing.

Tin Foil Timothy
16th October 2009, 11:30 PM
Thought I read it somewhere once. No matter, it really doesn't matter. There's plenty of proof in this thread that he's a liar and an all-around asshat. And that's the important thing.

The liars are the Zionists and the neocons. Galloway's only crime was to maek them all look like retards. I still laugh about those idiots in the senate being completely demolished by Galloway.

If Galloway was the PUTUS then there would be millions of people still alive in this world. He would have the balls to stand up against the Zionist cancer.

gtc
17th October 2009, 12:14 AM
If Galloway was the PUTUS then there would be millions of people still alive in this world. He would have the balls to stand up against the Zionist cancer.

He may well be the PUTA of the US but he can't be the POTUS because he wasn't born there.

Tin Foil Timothy
17th October 2009, 12:41 AM
He may well be the PUTA of the US but he can't be the POTUS because he wasn't born there.

Ya don't say! It was of course a hypothetical dream :)

Anyway even if he was born in the US he can't be the POTUS because he would never pledge allegiance to AIPAC.

NWO Sentryman
17th October 2009, 02:19 AM
AIPAC, "Zionist cancer", still propagating the "Z.O.G" theory

I think we have an antisemite here.

Oh, BTW before you go on ignore, i want you to know that Christopher Hitchens tore Galloway Apart, and so would Daniel Pipes.

funk de fino
17th October 2009, 04:30 AM
Galloway. What a guy. :cool: Always speaking up for the people. The zionist propegandists in this thread are getting quite tiring.

Trolling much? What an embarrassment.

funk de fino
17th October 2009, 04:33 AM
The liars are the Zionists and the neocons. Galloway's only crime was to maek them all look like retards. I still laugh about those idiots in the senate being completely demolished by Galloway.

If Galloway was the PUTUS then there would be millions of people still alive in this world. He would have the balls to stand up against the Zionist cancer.

Galloway is a liar. Get over it. He is an embarrassing fool. Many of us who have known of him for years are nothing to do with your zionist obsession. Many of the left in the UK think the same of the man. They are certainly not zionists and are the real anti war people in this country. He is a media whore celebrity not a politician.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

funk de fino
17th October 2009, 05:02 AM
Actually Galloway is a Roman Catholic. Although that's no better then Islam or other sects of the Abrahamic Cults.

Actually he was brought up a Roman catholic. There is a difference.

To say Galloway is a Muslim is complete nonsense and is running along the same lines as the neocon/Zionist binary thinking of asserting than anyone not aligned to political group A must be aligned to political group B/.

He refuses to say what his beliefs are but he praises prophet mohamed in speeches and quotes the koran. There is more than a suspicion he has coverted to islam. Its nothing to do with zionists but you had to get it in the post eh?

Matthew Best
17th October 2009, 05:05 AM
I feel Galloway adds to the general gaiety of the nation. Some people seem to quite like him. Others seem to really enjoy hating him. He's like the JR Ewing of politics.

Everyone's a winner!

Marc39
17th October 2009, 05:39 AM
Nothing would entertain me more than a bunch of Zionist Atrocity Deniers going head to head in a debate with George Galloway. He would easily demolish them like shooting fish in a barrel.

I would shred Galloway...with the facts, just as I do to your posts. He's a two-bit demagogue and a hypocrite, as has been shown.

Tin Foil Timothy
18th October 2009, 01:32 PM
I would shred Galloway...with the facts, just as I do to your posts.

:dl:

Tin Foil Timothy
18th October 2009, 01:39 PM
AIPAC, "Zionist cancer", still propagating the "Z.O.G" theory

I think we have an antisemite here.

Oh, BTW before you go on ignore, i want you to know that Christopher Hitchens tore Galloway Apart, and so would Daniel Pipes.

Oh dear. Telling the truth about a Zionist Lobby group having a big influence in the government is racist? I respectfully suggest you learn what racism is.

NWO Sentryman
18th October 2009, 01:46 PM
Oh dear. Telling the truth about a Zionist Lobby group having a big influence in the government is racist? I respectfully suggest you learn what racism is.

I am taking ignore off from here on.

No, you sound exactly like the White Supremacist militias of the 90s, the National Front and the BNP, with your codeword 'zionist'

I know what racism is. Look in the mirror.

Stay on topic and be civil.

Marc39
18th October 2009, 03:06 PM
I am taking ignore off from here on.

No, you sound exactly like the White Supremacist militias of the 90s, the National Front and the BNP, with your codeword 'zionist'

I know what racism is. Look in the mirror.

Martin Luther King would be appalled..

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism.”

Thunder
18th October 2009, 03:32 PM
Martin Luther King would be appalled..

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism.”

some people question whether MLK actually uttered these words.

5 minutes of research. It now appears that the letter that these words supposedly came from, in indeed a hoax.

http://jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

Marc39
18th October 2009, 07:45 PM
:dl:

Infantile cartoons, eh?

A secret tactic used by the Yale Debate Association?

dafydd
19th October 2009, 06:45 AM
Likewsie :D

I think more people should watch the videos in the OP, and see his full testimony. Is utter class. The senate look like they dont know what hit them.

I am no admirer of Galloway,but he did make them look like utter fools.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 12:34 PM
Sooooooooo.....

Bringing this back to Mr Galloway and not laregely irrelivant topics....

Whats so bad about him? :D

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 12:37 PM
he did make them look like utter fools.


Totally agree. Would love for someone to come up with one piece of evidence that anything he said under oath at the senate was a lie. Hitchens has said that he lied his way through the senate hearing. I have yet to see any evidence of him making one lie during. I think they would have caught him out if he did.

NWO Sentryman
19th October 2009, 01:06 PM
I will let Johann Hari speak for me on this:

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=69

Mr Hari has an excellent track record on journalistic matters.

And you should check out the George Galloway/christopher Hitchens debate someone linked to beforehand.

funk de fino
19th October 2009, 01:37 PM
Totally agree. Would love for someone to come up with one piece of evidence that anything he said under oath at the senate was a lie. Hitchens has said that he lied his way through the senate hearing. I have yet to see any evidence of him making one lie during. I think they would have caught him out if he did.

No-one here claimed he did. Stop making stuff up. He has lied so many other times we do not need to show he lied to the senate.

funk de fino
19th October 2009, 01:38 PM
I am no admirer of Galloway,but he did make them look like utter fools.

Same here. Unfortunately there are many other circumstances of him lying and being made to look like a schoolchild with his hand in the cookie jar.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 01:55 PM
I will let Johann Hari speak for me on this:

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=69

Mr Hari has an excellent track record on journalistic matters.


Instead of posting a whole (largely wrong and misrepresentative) article, why not quote a bit of it? So we could discuss the bits you are referring to here.

That article has already been answered, its mainly the same old, someone accusing him of being evil as he met sadam. Yes, he did give him praise when he met him, but he was on a humanitarian visit. He was saluting the Iraqi peoples courage after the attrocities there, not Sadam himself. He was there to help the people; and happy Sadam was agreeable during his meeting.

As he said in his testimony:

"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.

"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do."



And you should check out the George Galloway/christopher Hitchens debate someone linked to beforehand.


I have seen the debate, George clearly wins. Things get pretty heated though, and it was a close call with many a low blow from either side.

I think that Hitchens has lost credibility about anytyhing he says on Galloway since he claimed that he "lied his way through the senate hearing", yet clearly he did not. Or it would have been found out. Or someone would have proved it here by now.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 01:56 PM
No-one here claimed he did. Stop making stuff up. He has lied so many other times we do not need to show he lied to the senate.


Evidence?

NWO Sentryman
19th October 2009, 01:58 PM
Em, name one weapons system from the US that Rumsfeld Sold to Saddam. I am talking Hardware. Not "Bear Spares". Actual US military Hardware.

There is a great chart based on the SIPRI report on arms sales to iraq that i should dredge up somewhere.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 01:59 PM
Why was Tin Foil man banned?

NWO Sentryman
19th October 2009, 02:00 PM
Why was Tin Foil man banned?

Because he violated the terms of his probation. Well, i don't udnerstand it either as the AH Forum which i am a member of doesn;t have the same system.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 02:01 PM
Em, name one weapons system from the US that Rumsfeld Sold to Saddam.


No-one said that. So I see no reason to.

NWO Sentryman
19th October 2009, 02:02 PM
No-one said that. So I see no reason to.

The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns

Galloway said Rumsfeld sold guns to saddam. That is a bald faced lie.

First off, if America armed saddam then why were the Iraqis equpped with standard Issue Soviet equipment such as AK-47s, T-72s etc.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 02:19 PM
Galloway said Rumsfeld sold guns to saddam. That is a bald faced lie.


Yes, he said guns, not "weapons systems".

If you want evidence of guns, then I can show that :p (and stop being so pedantic)

First off, if America armed saddam then why were the Iraqis equpped with standard Issue Soviet equipment such as AK-47s, T-72s etc.


Because they were there first, they had a mixture.

NWO Sentryman
19th October 2009, 02:24 PM
Yes, he said guns, not "weapons systems".

If you want evidence of guns, then I can show that :p (and stop being so pedantic)




Because they were there first, they had a mixture.

A report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute concludes that between 1973 and 1991, the United States of America gave 0.5% of saddam's hardware (presumably the unarmed hueys) and the Soviet Union gave 57% of saddam's hardware with China givign 12% and France 13%

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 02:32 PM
So galloway was right about that one, as stated under oath.

Next.

portlandatheist
19th October 2009, 04:43 PM
So galloway was right about that one, as stated under oath.

Next.

Technically correct but it is still very misleading. Just like its technically correct that the US found WMD's in Iraq after then invasion but it is misleading to characterize those finds as meaningful.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 04:52 PM
Just like its technically correct that the US found WMD's in Iraq after then invasion but it is misleading to characterize those finds as meaningful.


They did? I must have missed this, what were they? Evidence?

.... They weren't WMD's from brought by Sadam from the west were they?! Now that would've been very embarressing for Tony or George.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 04:55 PM
He makes me laugh so hard when he wins all his debates. This is probably the best short compilation clip of a him winning debates:

LvdKyGjNSg0

portlandatheist
19th October 2009, 05:48 PM
They did? I must have missed this, what were they? Evidence?

.... They weren't WMD's from brought by Sadam from the west were they?! Now that would've been very embarressing for Tony or George.

A small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the Iraq Survey Group. I think they were stored improperly and were essentially useless as weapons. There was also a IED that had nerve gas in it that was used against US troops.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 06:11 PM
A small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the Iraq Survey Group. I think they were stored improperly and were essentially useless as weapons. There was also a IED that had nerve gas in it that was used against US troops.


But we are still in agreement that the claims made for the reasons to go to war were all, as galloway says, "A pack of lies", right? So the claims made before the war of WMD's were pretty much just lies?

The whole 30 minute attack thing, and Sadam having huge stockpiles and wanting to attack us, etc.

portlandatheist
19th October 2009, 06:38 PM
But we are still in agreement that the claims made for the reasons to go to war were all, as galloway says, "A pack of lies", right? So the claims made before the war of WMD's were pretty much just lies?

The whole 30 minute attack thing, and Sadam having huge stockpiles and wanting to attack us, etc.

Perhaps I used a bad analogy because you are missing the point. George Galloway was disingenuous, to say the least, when speaking about US supplying Iraq.

Zeuzzz
19th October 2009, 07:15 PM
Perhaps I used a bad analogy because you are missing the point. George Galloway was disingenuous, to say the least, when speaking about US supplying Iraq.


But factually accurate, none-the-less. :p

Skeptic
19th October 2009, 10:02 PM
I do with people will make up their mind.

1). If Saddam is a brave fighter for his country's independence against evil US imperialism (like Galloway claims), you can't at the same time blame the USA for arming him.

2). If the USA is evil for arming Saddam with 0.5% of his weapons, the USSR is 100 times as evil for arming him with 50% or more of those weapons. Yet somehow the paradise of the workers is never blamed; it's always the "evil USA arm dealers".

Pardalis
19th October 2009, 10:46 PM
Glad to have you back Skeptic. Always a refreshment of logic. :)

Undesired Walrus
19th October 2009, 11:17 PM
Hmm..

Zeuzzz
20th October 2009, 05:17 AM
Tony Benn, another legend.

fjw6IZEhtLI

And supporting the right for people to defend themselves is a completely different matter from who they get their weapons from.

Zeuzzz
20th October 2009, 05:27 AM
1). If Saddam is a brave fighter for his country's independence against evil US imperialism (like Galloway claims), you can't at the same time blame the USA for arming him.


Nope, he never claimed that. He spent years protesting against him.

2). If the USA is evil for arming Saddam with 0.5% of his weapons, the USSR is 100 times as evil for arming him with 50% or more of those weapons. Yet somehow the paradise of the workers is never blamed; it's always the "evil USA arm dealers".


Where did galloway say the US are "evil" for arming Sadam with weapons? To me, He was merely pointing out the difference in purpose between his visit and Rumsfelds.

WildCat
20th October 2009, 06:12 AM
So, ignoring all of Galloway's lies, his support of terrorist groups and thugocracies and dictators, the fact he's rarely in Parliament representing the people who elected him, beyond all that he's actually a great man?

Zeuzzz
20th October 2009, 06:50 AM
So, ignoring all of Galloway's lies


What compared to the rampant lies of the US admin to get into war?

his support of terrorist groups and thugocracies and dictators



Like Americas support of Sadam and Iraq against Iran?

the fact he's rarely in Parliament representing the people who elected him,


He has been voted in a damn few more times than most.

beyond all that he's actually a great man?


Pretty much. Your catching on :)

WildCat
20th October 2009, 07:17 AM
What compared to the rampant lies of the US admin to get into war?
What lies? Being wrong doesn't make you a liar. Being a liar does, like when Georgie boy said he nevrer said "we are all Hamas".

Like Americas support of Sadam and Iraq against Iran?
No, not like that at all. The national governments of country's generaslly have a monopoly on foreign policy. Individual politicians don't get to aid terrorist groups or give money to them.

But you now admit that Galloway supports Hamas, and also their policies of genocide against Jews, torturing to death political opponents, stealing humanitarian aid for their own purposes, etc etc?

He has been voted in a damn few more times than most.
Which proves only that an ant-semite can get elected from a district full of anti-semites.

By all means support this asshat if you want, but it's kind of odd you seem to be in love with his words while ignoring his very opposite actions. PT Barnum's observation remains spot-on so many byears later.

Arcade22
20th October 2009, 07:27 AM
What compared to the rampant lies of the US admin to get into war?
So you agree that he IS a liar?

Zeuzzz
20th October 2009, 09:07 AM
What lies? Being wrong doesn't make you a liar. Being a liar does, like when Georgie boy said he nevrer said "we are all Hamas".


Tit for tat.

He was trying to make a profound statement about human values and everyone being equal humans in a heated rally while children and innocent people were being murdered. I'm so not surprised you did not get it.

In the context of reading it as a quote alone, he is right to say he never said it in the way intended by the person taking it out of context.

Individual politicians don't get to aid terrorist groups or give money to them.


:dl:

Think about what you just said. And what you accused Galloway of earlier. :)

But you now admit that Galloway supports Hamas


Nope, he doesn't.

Which proves only that an ant-semite can get elected from a district full of anti-semites.


I will ask one more time before considering this question already answered due to your avoidance of it: Please provide evidence that Galloway is in the slightest bit anti-semitic.

I can provide tonnes of evidence that he absolutely despises all anti-semites. Just youtube it for gods sake.

WildCat
20th October 2009, 09:17 AM
Tit for tat.

He was trying to make a profound statement about human values and everyone being equal humans in a heated rally while children and innocent people were being murdered. I'm so not surprised you did not get it.

In the context of reading it as a quote alone, he is right to say he never said it in the way intended by the person taking it out of context.
I saw the whole thing. He was doing nothing but expressing solidarity for a internationally recognized terrorist organization and its policies of oppression, torture, muder, and genocide.




:dl:

Think about what you just said. And what you accused Galloway of earlier. :)
I don't support it when states do it either. But Galloway supports it when he shares a common enemy with the terrorist group.

Nope, he doesn't.
Yes, he does. Here's proof:

IYFGIbaabTU


I will ask one more time before considering this question already answered due to your avoidance of it: Please provide evidence that Galloway is in the slightest bit anti-semitic.
He supports a terrorist organization (see video above) which has as its stated and written goal genocide of the Jews.

It's hard to get any more anti-semitic than that.

I can provide tonnes of evidence that he absolutely despises all anti-semites. Just youtube it for gods sake.
He has a funny way of showing it, giving money to Hamas and all... :rolleyes:

WildCat
20th October 2009, 09:21 AM
Look out for those eggs Georgie!

oCPyml_NwEU

Zeuzzz
20th October 2009, 09:39 AM
I saw the whole thing. He was doing nothing but expressing solidarity for a internationally recognized terrorist organization and its policies of oppression, torture, muder, and genocide.


Yes reminding us that no matter who the people are, they are still human beings. No matter what sick doctrine they have been forced to adhere to, they are victims of this; just as much as their opponents are.

Its you thats dehumanizing people by labelling them terorrists that should be killed. He wishes no such thing to any people.

And dont get me started on Isreals record of "oppression, torture, muder, and genocide", we might even get to the point where we compare the statistics of Hamas and Israel directly. And then we can decide who's the 'terrorist' organization of the two :rolleyes:

I don't support it when states do it either. But Galloway supports it when he shares a common enemy with the terrorist group.


Galloway was giving money to the suffering palestinians as DONATED by the public around the world and in the UK. It was an aid convoy.

Yes, he does. Here's proof:

IYFGIbaabTU



Out of context bullcrap, uploaded by youtube galloway smearer GeorgeGalloway or "gallowaywatch" that lies, twists and distorts every quote into making them seem so much worse than they are. Some fo his videos are truly terrible. Yes, george is giving palestinian people money and aid. And he's not ashamed of it. Big Deal? HAlf of the things n that clip are outright lies and out of context. Quote some if you feel the need.

He supports a terrorist organization (see video above) which has as its stated and written goal genocide of the Jews.


I think this is a lie. Evidence? If they want to wipe the racist ideology of Zionism off the map, maybe.

It's hard to get any more anti-semitic than that.


So you STILL cant find one single bit of evidence that george supports these views, or is anti-semitic?

Keep up the hand-waving :D

He has a funny way of showing it, giving money to Hamas and all... :rolleyes:


On humanitarian grounds, or people would have died.

IDB87
20th October 2009, 10:02 AM
Yes reminding us that no matter who the people are, they are still human beings. No matter what sick doctrine they have been forced to adhere to, they are victims of this; just as much as their opponents are.

A dog with rabies is still a dog with rabies. Chances are it's still a dog, but it is now rabid and has to be put down. This doctrine you so lightly excuse has made the militias of Hamas rabid and, if not kept in check politcally (as their leaders refuse to do) must be put down militarily. For the good of themselves and others.

Its you thats dehumanizing people by labelling them terorrists that should be killed. He wishes no such thing to any people.

Any group that enables and encourages their followers to blow themselves up on a crowded bus is a terrorist. It requires no outside dehumanization.

And dont get me started on Isreals record of "oppression, torture, muder, and genocide", we might even get to the point where we compare the statistics of Hamas and Israel directly. And then we can decide who's the 'terrorist' organization of the two

This tu quoque argument is beyond boring now. Do you bring anything else to this discussion?

Galloway was giving money to the suffering palestinians as DONATED by the public around the world and in the UK. It was an aid convoy.

Yet he did not give it to any independant Palestinian charity. Instead, he gave it directly to a recongized terrorist group renown for taking aid meant for the Palestinains as their own, and using it to arm their militias. If the thought was noble, the outcome was not.

Out of context bullcrap, uploaded by youtube galloway smearer GeorgeGalloway or "gallowaywatch" that lies, twists and distorts every quote into making them seem so much worse than they are.

Examples of Galloway quotes/statements taken out of context? Last I saw, these were actual quotes/statements made by Galloway himself, completley in context and unedited. It is your job to provie quotes taken out of context, and lies made by the YT user.

Arcade22
20th October 2009, 10:08 AM
Look out for those eggs Georgie!

oCPyml_NwEU

That's bad, but he's still a liar and terrorist supporter!

Zeuzzz
20th October 2009, 10:30 AM
A dog with rabies is still a dog with rabies. Chances are it's still a dog, but it is now rabid and has to be put down. This doctrine you so lightly excuse has made the militias of Hamas rabid and, if not kept in check politcally (as their leaders refuse to do) must be put down militarily. For the good of themselves and others.


To clarify: They must be murdered because they are not in check with Israels policies?


Any group that enables and encourages their followers to blow themselves up on a crowded bus is a terrorist. It requires no outside dehumanization.


Any army leutenant that commands a stealth bomber to drop a bomb in a civilian area without thought of what humanitarian catastrophe's it might cause is also a terrorist then. There is no moral difference. Both kill innocent people. And one side kills a damn lot more than the other.

It is not the hardware of military weapons that frightens me, because a gun cant go off. It is the hatred that makes people want to use them; that is the fuel of war.

This tu quoque argument is beyond boring now. Do you bring anything else to this discussion?


Yes, cakes, a picnic, and hope it will all work out.

Yet he did not give it to any independant Palestinian charity. Instead, he gave it directly to a recongized terrorist group renown for taking aid meant for the Palestinains as their own, and using it to arm their militias. If the thought was noble, the outcome was not.


Many palestinians that have been adequately funded and supported by Hamas would strongly disagree, they are the govenment, and they do run quite adequate civilian support. Or else there would be rioting and much anger against them. But we dont see that do we?

Examples of Galloway quotes/statements taken out of context? Last I saw, these were actual quotes/statements made by Galloway himself, completley in context and unedited. It is your job to provie quotes taken out of context, and lies made by the YT user.


I will in due course, but his misrepresentations and smears are worth a whole page of this thread in itself.

As for what galloway said, I'll try to put it in its correct context, if you would be so kind as so point out the phrases that bother you so much.

Ziggurat
20th October 2009, 11:27 AM
Its you thats dehumanizing people by labelling them terorrists that should be killed.

What a perfect distillation of the moral vacuity of left-wing cant.

He wishes no such thing to any people.

Galloway isn't opposed to killing. He just doesn't want the west to do any of it. He isn't anti-war, he's just on the other side.

Zeuzzz
20th October 2009, 11:30 AM
Galloway isn't opposed to killing.


:dl:

As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".

:gnome:

Ziggurat
20th October 2009, 11:38 AM
As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".

His support for Hamas is rather proof enough. Oh sure, he'll never say he isn't opposed to killing, but the only killings he really stands up against are those done by the west. Just like you rationalize away Galloway's support for terrorist organizations, he will rationalize away the killings committed by those terrorist organizations.

Zeuzzz
20th October 2009, 11:47 AM
His support for Hamas is rather proof enough. Oh sure, he'll never say he isn't opposed to killing, but the only killings he really stands up against are those done by the west. Just like you rationalize away Galloway's support for terrorist organizations, he will rationalize away the killings committed by those terrorist organizations.


I think you are mistaking the side of the resistance for the agressor. Galloway is always on about the pointless army members that have gotten killed by people "against the west" as you say, frequently talks about them and how they might improve this death toll so its not so bad.

IDB87
20th October 2009, 11:50 AM
To clarify: They must be murdered because they are not in check with Israels policies?

What policies is Hamas not in check with? The idea that a nation should live without the threat of suicide bombings and constant (and deliberate) attacks on its civilians at the hands of religious fundamentalists? Maybe I missed something, and perhaps you could clairfy just what you mean by Israel's policies.

Any army leutenant that commands a stealth bomber to drop a bomb in a civilian area without thought of what humanitarian catastrophe's it might cause is also a terrorist then. There is no moral difference. Both kill innocent people. And one side kills a damn lot more than the other.

One can justify certain types of military action, such as the situation you made above. One cannot, however, justify nihilism in the form of suicide bombings. You are welcomed to make the connection though.

It is not the hardware of military weapons that frightens me, because a gun cant go off. It is the hatred that makes people want to use them; that is the fuel of war.

g1Ibzd8LaW4

Applicable to Hamas-Israel.


Many palestinians that have been adequately funded and supported by Hamas would strongly disagree, they are the govenment, and they do run quite adequate civilian support.

Would those Palestinians happen to be Hamas members? How about the Fatah members who live(d) in Gaza? How about the Christians who live in Gaza, the women, etc. Hamas brutalizes their opponents, intimidates those who may speak up, and murder those who do.

Or else there would be rioting and much anger against them. But we dont see that do we?

Did you miss the news reports of Hamas members murdering Fatah members in the streets, throwing them off building tops, shooting them in hospital beds, etc?


As for what galloway said, I'll try to put it in its correct context, if you would be so kind as so point out the phrases that bother you so much.

No, you must take what statements of Galloways were taken out of context. It is our contention that all videos of Galloway are in context and unedited. Prove they are not.

IDB87
20th October 2009, 11:59 AM
:dl:

As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".

:gnome:

-kUy4LxxuFQ&

1:50-on

IchabodPlain
20th October 2009, 12:03 PM
But we are still in agreement that the claims made for the reasons to go to war were all, as galloway says, "A pack of lies", right? So the claims made before the war of WMD's were pretty much just lies?

The whole 30 minute attack thing, and Sadam having huge stockpiles and wanting to attack us, etc.

You're sidestepping the issue. Technically, the US sold Saddam weapons in the form of unarmed helicopters and dual use materials (such as chlorine), and technically US found WMD's in Iraq after the invasion. If you're going going to claim Galloway's statements as true based on a technicality, regardless of how misleading and deceptive the statements may be, please be consistent.

Also, I can't find anything (other than the Galloway quote) which says Rumsfeld sold guns to Saddam - Linky?

dudalb
20th October 2009, 12:09 PM
The problem with the "Anti Zionists" is that it is sort of irrevelent whether the founding of Israel back in 1948 was a good idea, a bad idea, or something inbetween. As of 2009, there are Five Million Jews in Israel, and they ain't voluntary going anyplace else. That Cow had definently left the barn.
What has to happen for the Palestinians to "get their land back" is painfully obvious, but the Anti Zionist don't want to admit it.

Stout
20th October 2009, 01:06 PM
The problem with the "Anti Zionists" is that it is sort of irrevelent whether the founding of Israel back in 1948 was a good idea, a bad idea, or something inbetween. As of 2009, there are Five Million Jews in Israel, and they ain't voluntary going anyplace else. That Cow had definently left the barn.
What has to happen for the Palestinians to "get their land back" is painfully obvious, but the Anti Zionist don't want to admit it.

I agree, at this point in time the history is whether it was a god or bad idea is irrelevant, fact is it's a done deal and the only way there's going to be peace is for the Palestinians to lay down their weapons, eliminate the state of belligerence, and get on with their lives.

There is a way for the Palestinians to "get their land back" in the view on the anti-Zionists, and that's the one state solution accompanied by the right of return. I find this approach rather curious as in my experience most anti-Zionists tend to stand behind separatist movements, like the Tamils in their quest for a place to call their own.

I'm beginning to think that the anti-Zionist left actually enjoys this fight as it gives them a vicarious outlet for waging their anti-western, anti-capitalist "war" with other people's lives from the safety of their comfy chairs.

commandlinegamer
20th October 2009, 01:57 PM
:dl:

As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".

:gnome:

I think he once said he would be happy to see Osama bin Laden strung up; I'm trying to see if I can find a source.

Skeptic
20th October 2009, 02:01 PM
What has to happen for the Palestinians to "get their land back" is painfully obvious, but the Anti zionist don't want to admit it.

You mean the genocide and expulsion of of the Jews? Yes, of course the "anti-zionists" support that, but it's even worse than what you think.

The "anti-zionists" support of the Palestinians is limited strictly to their interest in seeing how their plight can be used to advance the noble goal of a second holocaust. They totally ignore the plight of the Palestinians caused by their own leaders, or by the Arab world, because that isn't something that advances that goal.

We saw this (to give one example of many) during the heyday of the Oslo "peace" process: whenever some city was under Israeli control, we'd here moans and cries from the "anti-zionists" about how the IDF is violating human rights there. The moment it was passed to Palestinian control -- that is, put under the thumb of Arafat's or Hamas' thugs -- it is as if a curtain descended on the place, as the "anti-zionists" instantly, indeed literally overnight (the night control passed from the IDF to the PA) lost all interest in the welfare of the population there.

If tomorrow Israel is destroyed, and the Palestinians "get their land back", it will be the end of the "anti-zionists" interest in them. Having served their purpose of killing the Jewish scum (the only goal the "anti-zionists" really care about), they will be discarded to live out their lives under the thumb of someone like Hamas or worse, and nothing -- including mass execution of anybody who opposes the regime (as Hamas did to PLO supporters, for example) -- will matter any more to the "anti-zionist" human right beacons (wellllllllll, human rights of non-jews... then again, most "anti-zionists" don't seem to consider jews human).

Heck, if the newly liberated (read: judenfrei) Palestine will the next day be invaded by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria and parceled up again into fiefdoms between these competing Arab countries, you won't hear a word -- a peep -- from these folks over the "occupation of Palestine". There wasn't any when Egypt and Jordan did just that between 1948 and 1967.

Undesired Walrus
20th October 2009, 02:03 PM
He has been voted in a damn few more times than most.




Yeah, not bothering with some of the poorest people in the UK is fine as long as they don't repeatedly vote you back in.

And he doesn't even give a **** about running for re-election there, given that he is running for another constituency in 2010. It seems like he is more interested in rocking the boat than sticking with the people who gave him the chance to represent them.

Galloway represents one person: Galloway.

Undesired Walrus
20th October 2009, 02:07 PM
:dl:

As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".

:gnome:

Supporting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million civilians.

No surprise you repeatedly avoid this fact.

Stout
20th October 2009, 02:20 PM
If tomorrow Israel is destroyed, and the Palestinians "get their land back", it will be the end of the "anti-zionists" interest in them. Having served their purpose of killing the Jewish scum (the only goal the "anti-zionists" really care about), they will be discarded to live out their lives under the thumb of someone like Hamas or worse, and nothing -- including mass execution of anybody who opposes the regime (as Hamas did to PLO supporters, for example) -- will matter any more to the "anti-zionist" human right beacons (wellllllllll, human rights of non-jews... then again, most "anti-zionists" don't seem to consider jews human).

Heck, if the newly liberated (read: judenfrei) Palestine will the next day be invaded by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria and parceled up again into fiefdoms between these competing Arab countries, you won't hear a word -- a peep -- from these folks over the "occupation of Palestine". There wasn't any when Egypt and Jordan did just that between 1948 and 1967.

I don't think the anti-Zionists are concerned with "killing the Jewish scum" but instead seeing the Israelis as white people who invaded and colonised the lands of brown people with the help of the white power structure.

Their goal is to return the historical lands to these brown people and whatever happens to these brown people at the hands of other brown people is a case for determining just how much influence the white power structure exerted on those dominating brown people to make them behave like that.

Criticizing groups of brown people simply because they're evil is racist and if it weren't for those meddling white people the world would be,,I dunno, some sort of paradise or something.

Skeptic
20th October 2009, 03:23 PM
Hmmmmmmm, you've got a point, Stout, which is quite similar to mine, though not the same.

We both would agree, I suppose, that "anti-Zionists" do not see brown people as fully human.

They are never responsible for anything they do, for example -- they are always merely passively reacting (by suicide bombing, for example) to actions by the real actors in this world, the white people.

The moment the little brown (or black) people are not linked to some white guy -- a long as the bad guy is not white -- who cares? It's not as if what black or brown people do to each other matters.

Brown and black people are just spear-holders in a walk-on role in the great passion play. All speaking roles -- whether as the hero (the "anti-zionist") or the villan (the jews) -- are reserved for whites.

The Fool
20th October 2009, 04:48 PM
The problem with the "Anti Zionists" is that it is sort of irrevelent whether the founding of Israel back in 1948 was a good idea, a bad idea, or something inbetween. As of 2009, there are Five Million Jews in Israel, and they ain't voluntary going anyplace else. That Cow had definently left the barn.
What has to happen for the Palestinians to "get their land back" is painfully obvious, but the Anti Zionist don't want to admit it.

why oh why do we need to constantly infer that to be anti-zionist or even "anti-somethingsdonebyisrael is calling for genocide of Israelis?????

The current zionist government of Israel stands on a platform of no palestinian state under any circumstances. I think they need to change.

I am "anti-thisattitudeofthecurrentzionistgovernmentofisrael" however, my proposed solution (a palestinian state) does not involve Genocide of israelis.....don't see why it has to?

Stout
20th October 2009, 06:54 PM
Hmmmmmmm, you've got a point, Stout, which is quite similar to mine, though not the same.

We both would agree, I suppose, that "anti-Zionists" do not see brown people as fully human.

They are never responsible for anything they do, for example -- they are always merely passively reacting (by suicide bombing, for example) to actions by the real actors in this world, the white people.

The moment the little brown (or black) people are not linked to some white guy -- a long as the bad guy is not white -- who cares? It's not as if what black or brown people do to each other matters.

Brown and black people are just spear-holders in a walk-on role in the great passion play. All speaking roles -- whether as the hero (the "anti-zionist") or the villan (the jews) -- are reserved for whites.

The major difference being, I don't see the anti-Zionists as wishing death on the Israelis. Excusing it sure, but not wishing it.

Passively reacting ? I'm unsure about that term but generally those sort of reactions are seen as justified because they're ( Palis ) reacting against an aggression, in this case being colonised, and fighting back with the limited means at their disposal.

Yes, brown on brown violence seems to be excused too with the thrust being to identify just how the evil west helped make it happen. Using the Tamils as an example, our local anti-western types were writing to the Canadian government demanding that they stop enabling the Genocide in Sri Lanka by sending over aid to the Sri Lankan government.

Now that I've had a boatload of Tamils deposited on my doorstep I expect those anti-western types to be howling that we give them refuge because "we" helped create the situation in the first place.

Stout
20th October 2009, 06:55 PM
The current zionist government of Israel stands on a platform of no palestinian state under any circumstances. I think they need to change.



I'm not seeing that. What about eliminating the state of belligerence and forcing Israel's hand under the Oslo accords ?

Skeptic
20th October 2009, 10:32 PM
Passively reacting ? I'm unsure about that term but generally those sort of reactions are seen as justified because they're ( Palis ) reacting against an aggression, in this case being colonised, and fighting back with the limited means at their disposal.

Considering that their definition of "colonization" is "Israel existing"; that their means, while perhaps limited, are more or less 100% aimed at destroying Israel (nothing goes to, say, welfare or non-Hamas-brainwashing schooling); that they constantly rejected a Palestinian state; and that many other people, though occupied, do not seem to consider it necessary to used suicide bombing to kill the babies of the enemy -- this is an Islamist technique of terrorism -- we can translate what the Palestinians are doing more accurately as something like:

"The Palestinians are fighting to destroy Israel with everything they've got, over and above doing anything to improve their situation; they hate Jews so badly including the repeated rejection of a Palestinian state that would not allow them to continue killing Jews (even if only on paper); they want the Jews dead so badly they send their own children to blow themselves up as long as they kill any Jew they can, due to their Islamist, Jihad-based, terrorism-supporting world view."

Making this single-minded genocidal goal of the Palestinian leadership, driven by their religion, by their bigotry, and their simple hatred of Jews into some noble "anti-colonialist" cause is precisely the sort of distortion that I'm talking about.

Then again, this is nothing new, and you have a point that it's not unique to the war against the Jews, I'm sorry, the "zionists" (wink wink). On the whole the "anti-zionists" are the same folks who supported other single-minded mass murderers -- as long as they murdered the correct people and could be seen as "revolutionaries" -- such as Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Stalin, the Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.

Stout
21st October 2009, 08:46 AM
Skeptic, I'm under the impression that we're talking about two different groups here. I'm also under the impression that you live in Israel and are much closer to this conflict than I am, half way around the world in my comfy chair.

I can take everything you say as applying to the Palestinian people, or factions with in that population and find myself unable to refute it due to lack of experience, so to speak.

I was speaking about those western anti-Zionists who, like myself are "arguing" this conflict based on media reports and blog postings. It's this group I'm specifically talking about when I say I've never heard anyone calling for the death of "the Jews"

I'd have to do some pretty fancy semantic gymnastics and indulge in some wild speculation to equate the proponents of the one state solution as wanting to see the Jewish population wiped out.

WildCat
21st October 2009, 09:02 AM
I'd have to do some pretty fancy semantic gymnastics and indulge in some wild speculation to equate the proponents of the one state solution as wanting to see the Jewish population wiped out.
So you think Palestine would be the first Arab state ever to treat religious minorities equally under the law?

You believe this why?

Ziggurat
21st October 2009, 09:16 AM
I think you are mistaking the side of the resistance for the agressor.

"Resistance". What a wonderful euphemism for trying to kill children.

Galloway is always on about the pointless army members that have gotten killed by people "against the west" as you say, frequently talks about them and how they might improve this death toll so its not so bad.

And where does he always lay the blame? On the west, in the form of our political leadership, never on the people who actually did the killing. You aren't disproving my point at all, Zeuzzz.

Stout
21st October 2009, 09:20 AM
So you think Palestine would be the first Arab state ever to treat religious minorities equally under the law?

You believe this why?

Non sequitur, I'm saying I've never heard/read anyone say that the one state solution is the same thing as death to the Jews. the destruction of Israel as it was originally envisioned, sure, but saying "death to the Jews" wouldn't go over well with even the most ardent supporters of *social justice*

Skeptic
21st October 2009, 10:04 AM
I was speaking about those western anti-Zionists who, like myself are "arguing" this conflict based on media reports and blog postings. It's this group I'm specifically talking about when I say I've never heard anyone calling for the death of "the Jews"

My grandfather was hounded out of Europe with the cry, "Jew, you don't belong here! You are a foreign immigrant! Go back to Palestine, your home!". Many of those who shouted that, in their post-war excuses for their behavior, claimed that they weren't really antisemites: they just wanted the Jews out of Europe, a limited geographical area, so it doesn't count.

Today, I am hounded by screams of, "Jew, you don't belong here! You are a foreign immigrant! Go back to Europe, your home!". Those who shout that, in their current excuse for their behavior, claim they aren't really antisemites: they just want the Jews out of Palestine, a limited geographical area, so it doesn't count.

The antisemites of yesteryear believed that, of all the nations of the earth, the Jews are especially evil, and have no right to exist. The "anti-zionists" of today believe that, of all the countries on the earth, the Jewish state is especially evil, and has no right to exists.

Do you think these similarities -- there are many more -- between today's "anti-zionists" and yesterday's antisemites are purely coincidental? They're not. Except for their care not to use the word "Jew" ("zionist" replaced that), they are simply the same Jew-haters of yesteryear, saying the exact same things: Juden Raus!; Jews ("zionists") control the world (or the USA, or the media); "Jews have no rights a non-Jew must respect" (to their own country, for instance); etc.

That I make no distinction between anti-zionism and antisemitism does not mean I make no distinction between both and criticism of Israel. Of course not every criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Not every criticism of Black people is racist. But this hardly means that someone who is obsessed with Blacks and constantly tells us about how their IQ is lower and their behavior stupid and dangerous, can claim he "isn't anti-black, just anti-low-intelligence" simply because he avoids the N-word and speaks about "people of inferior genetic composition" instead.

Stout
21st October 2009, 10:52 AM
Skeptic, I can understand your argument and I sympathize with your position however i don't agree with your parallels between the motivations of North American/European anti-Zionists and real live anti-Semites.

My take is that the non-involved, if you will, are using this conflict/issue simply to boost their own positions of moral superiority in the name of *social justice*

I can see their point too, but in the months that I've been following this issue I see more inflammatory rhetoric, more disconnection from reality, more willingness to excuse, and more application of double standards on the pro-Palestinian side than I do on the other.

Once, months ago someone posted that there were different standards of conduct in the world, standards for developing countries, standards for western countries, and standards for Israel. That's a paraphrase and although I was hesitant to acknowledge it at the time, I've come to believe that's true.

Maybe I don't understand anti-Semitism. I don't know many Jewish people but once I posted on this forum that i didn't like israelis, the young ones I met on trips to Thailand, not because they were Jewish, but because they were the most arrogant and inconsiderate *group* I've ever run across.

Gumboot, made a post in response to that comment, giving me reason to consider WHY they might be behaving in this manner and I accepted it, not because it was something I hadn't thought of, but because if i were in the shoes of those young Israelis, I'd be pissed off too.

Maybe my growing up atheist has something to do with my not understanding anti Semitism ? I'm by no means anti-religion ( well, sometimes I am but only when it tries to tell me how to live ) so I've never been a member of a "competing" spiritual group.

Or...you may be right. the anti-Zionists might be motivated by anti-semitism and just very careful to mask it by their use of language. I highly contest that position though. I see Jewish ( self identified ) people who are anti-Zionist and let's face it a HUGE part of the social justice mindset is anti-racism ( except against white people, but that lies in how they define the word racism ) and any "suspicions" of anti-semitism within that group would quickly be shouted down as being what it is...racism.

Yea, Jews control the world/USA/media/Hollywood. There's real anti-Semitism for you with. I think we all agree, here at least, that those people are to be ridiculed.

Not every criticism of Black people is racist. But this hardly means that someone who is obsessed with Blacks and constantly tells us about how their IQ is lower and their behavior stupid and dangerous, can claim he "isn't anti-black, just anti-low-intelligence" simply because he avoids the N-word and speaks about "people of inferior genetic composition" instead.

Interesting analogy, but flawed in comparison to this issue though. If there were a government of low intelligence people whose actions we could be critical of, then we could draw parallels.

funk de fino
21st October 2009, 11:13 AM
Evidence?

I have posted videos that show his lies. Stop being an ignorant troll.

Skeptic
22nd October 2009, 02:12 AM
Once, months ago someone posted that there were different standards of conduct in the world, standards for developing countries, standards for western countries, and standards for Israel. That's a paraphrase and although I was hesitant to acknowledge it at the time, I've come to believe that's true.

Originally this is a quote by Benjamin Netanyahu, the current (and former) Israeli PM. My take on it is that it is true, and we can see from the use of three standards of behavior that it also shows anti-Islamic bias, not merely anti-Jewish one.

Those who employ this triple standard -- much of the "enlightened" European left, for example -- give Jews an impossibly high standard to match, so that they could be blamed for anything they do. They demand from "normal" (read: White, Western) people a "normal" standard of behavior. They have insultingly low, indeed nonexistent, demands for moral behavior from the Islamic world (and the third world in general), because you can't expect much from savage darkies, anyway.

Maybe I don't understand anti-Semitism. I don't know many Jewish people but once I posted on this forum that i didn't like israelis, the young ones I met on trips to Thailand, not because they were Jewish, but because they were the most arrogant and inconsiderate *group* I've ever run across.

(Sighhhhhhhh....)

You're telling me.

The obnoxious behavior of Israeli tourists is so notorious, that many places now, out of sad experience, have signs to the effect of "no Israelis wanted" -- not because they are "anti-zionist" or "anti-Israeli" or even know what zionism is, or where Israel is, but simply because of their behavior. Sometimes the signs say "no Jews" -- again, not because they hate Jews, but that the only thing they know about the Israeli tourists is that they're Jews and that those are the only Jews they get in their hotel. The average Israeli -- and, alas, this apply also to Israeli diplomats and politicians -- often has the grace, tact, and manners of a drunken elephant in a china shop.

What is the reaction of Israeli official bodies, and the Israeli press, to this "no Israelies wanted" phenomena? Screaming, "antisemites!" and "double standard!"? No. Many recent articles about this in the Israeli papers have, almost invariably, put the blame squarely on the Israeli tourists. The Israeli tourist ministry started a program to educate young people who are leaving the country on a "world tour" of south America or the east on how to behave. Let's hope it helps, and gets over the "I was a soldier / officer / pilot / gunner / medic / clerk / latrine attendant in the Israeli Army -- you don't have to teach me anything, you... you... Jew-hater!" cockiness of the average Israeli tourist in dealing with others abroad.

So you see, as I said -- not every criticism of Israel or Israelies is antisemitic, or is taken as such.

Zeuzzz
22nd October 2009, 02:16 AM
Could we stop talking about anti-semitism in a thread which is based on a person who no-one has shown any evidence for is anti-semitic? It really does not belong here.

Skeptic
22nd October 2009, 03:48 AM
Could we stop talking about anti-semitism in a thread which is based on a person who no-one has shown any evidence for is anti-semitic? .

Welllllllllll, except the "giving tons of money to Hamas to kill Jews with" thingy.

IDB87
22nd October 2009, 07:24 AM
Could we stop talking about anti-semitism in a thread which is based on a person who no-one has shown any evidence for is anti-semitic? It really does not belong here.

We are still waiting for the 'out of context' videos of George Galloway.

WildCat
22nd October 2009, 07:33 AM
We are still waiting for the 'out of context' videos of George Galloway.
I'm sure that the clip I posted of him giving money to Hamas started immediately after he announced the whole thing was merely a play, and the money was actually Monopoly money or something, and enoy the show.

funk de fino
22nd October 2009, 08:38 AM
:dl:

As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".

:gnome:

He asked the arab armies to come and help the Iraqis against the West.

Help them do what?

Stout
22nd October 2009, 08:46 AM
I suppose we could always amuse ourselves while we're waiting for those videos by making George Galloway Richard heene comparisons. Naaaa, anti-Semitism is more interesting.Originally this is a quote by Benjamin Netanyahu, the current (and former) Israeli PM. My take on it is that it is true, and we can see from the use of three standards of behavior that it also shows anti-Islamic bias, not merely anti-Jewish one.

.

I'm not seeing the anti-Islamic bias unless I go down this road.

They have insultingly low, indeed nonexistent, demands for moral behavior from the Islamic world (and the third world in general), because you can't expect much from savage darkies, anyway.

I'm hesitant to do so because I'm seeing more of a painting the Islamic world as victims reacting to bullying from the west mindset, than anything implying that the "savage darkies" should get a free pass because they're somehow less socially evolved.

I do agree that in certain circles anything critical of Islamic practices is seen as outright racism and i strongly disagree with this sentiment. preferring instead to call a spade a spade. hey, wait, was that a racist comment Like using the word denigrate ? Damn, anti-oppression politics is a minefield sometimes.

The obnoxious behavior of Israeli tourists is so notorious, that many places now, out of sad experience, have signs to the effect of "no Israelis wanted" -- not because they are "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Israeli" or even know what Zionism is, or where Israel is, but simply because of their behavior

Excellent.

I heard about, and looked for these signs in Thailand because i wanted to photograph one. I was unsuccessful in finding any but I did have some Thai bungalow operators tell me that if they suspect someone is Israeli, they double the rates in hopes of driving them somewhere else. Hummm, I can't find that photo I took of a sign outside a Cambodian bar saying that handgrenades weren't allowed inside.

So you see, as I said -- not every criticism of Israel or Israelies is antisemitic, or is taken as such.

Exactly. Out of all the Israelis i talked to about their image abroad, not one ever raised the issue of anti-Semitism which makes the arguments against the actions of the Israeli government being framed as anti-Semitism rather tedious.

WildCat
22nd October 2009, 09:35 AM
Hummm, I can't find that photo I took of a sign outside a Cambodian bar saying that handgrenades weren't allowed inside.
That's because they fear the wrath of the Amazon Woman.

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/amazon.JPG

Woe be to those who serve an unlicensed hand grenade at a bar!

Undesired Walrus
2nd May 2010, 08:43 AM
Praise be to FSM:

Seat Winner - Poplar and Limehouse

Next General Election Constituency Betting

Conservatives 1.90
Labour 2.10
Respect (Galloway) 11.00

Undesired Walrus
2nd May 2010, 08:51 AM
BTW:



as of April 2009 (Galloway) had turned up for only one in 20 votes in the last parliament while claiming 136,000 in expenses.

Skeptic
2nd May 2010, 08:52 AM
So, ignoring all of Galloway's lies, his support of terrorist groups and thugocracies and dictators, the fact he's rarely in Parliament representing the people who elected him, beyond all that he's actually a great man?

And APART from THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

dafydd
3rd May 2010, 04:51 AM
I saw the whole thing. He was doing nothing but expressing solidarity for a internationally recognized terrorist organization and its policies of oppression, torture, muder, and genocide.





I don't support it when states do it either. But Galloway supports it when he shares a common enemy with the terrorist group.


Yes, he does. Here's proof:

IYFGIbaabTU



He supports a terrorist organization (see video above) which has as its stated and written goal genocide of the Jews.

It's hard to get any more anti-semitic than that.


He has a funny way of showing it, giving money to Hamas and all... :rolleyes:

Where does Israel get the money for it's H-bombs?

geni
3rd May 2010, 05:00 AM
Where does Israel get the money for it's H-bombs?

Isreal has A-bombs. H-bombs is more questionable because we've never encountered a case of anyone managing to build one without doing some testing.

WildCat
3rd May 2010, 05:27 AM
Where does Israel get the money for it's H-bombs?
IIRC Israel's nuclear program was a joint venture with France.

JihadJane
3rd May 2010, 06:26 AM
George Galloway rocks!

dafydd
3rd May 2010, 07:05 AM
IIRC Israel's nuclear program was a joint venture with France.

Thank you.

geni
3rd May 2010, 10:40 AM
IIRC Israel's nuclear program was a joint venture with France.

Not really. There may have been a little tech transfer but not much beyond that. Developing nuclear weapons is not that serious an expense for a modern industrialised nation as south africa showed.

dudalb
7th May 2010, 10:40 AM
Galloway is history. Got his butt kicked last night in the election. One less embrassment for the UK Parliament.

NoZed Avenger
7th May 2010, 11:04 AM
How is this in USA Politics?

dudalb
7th May 2010, 11:07 AM
How is this in USA Politics?

It was started when there was only one Politics section,and apparently did not get moved over to the Non US section.

Undesired Walrus
7th May 2010, 11:09 AM
George Galloway rocks!

Yeah, so impressive that he refuses to attend the count and listen to the amount of votes he campaigned for. Such 'respect'.

Farewell Galloway, Londoners have universally rejected your demagoguery.

Skeptic
7th May 2010, 12:08 PM
A fiver that he blames mysterious "zionists" for his defeat by this time next week.

NoZed Avenger
7th May 2010, 12:39 PM
It was started when there was only one Politics section,and apparently did not get moved over to the Non US section.

Yeah, that possibility occurred to me about 10 seconds after I hit post.

Whoops.

geni
9th May 2010, 07:35 AM
A fiver that he blames mysterious "zionists" for his defeat by this time next week.

Considering where he was running that might actualy get him lynched.

Skeptic
9th May 2010, 09:03 AM
Considering where he was running that might actualy get him lynched.

If he gets lynched, that'll be the first useful thing he'd ever done.

Zeuzzz
9th May 2010, 10:11 AM
If he gets lynched, that'll be the first useful thing he'd ever done.


Would you like to pull the lever?

Skeptic
10th May 2010, 08:27 AM
If I see a group of folks with a rope rushing to hang Galloway, I will be in a terrible moral dilemma.

Should I take a nap, or finish that novel I'm reading?

Thunder
10th May 2010, 08:29 AM
If he gets lynched, that'll be the first useful thing he'd ever done.

but if Galloway said the same about you, he would be an anti-Semite.

funk de fino
10th May 2010, 08:32 AM
If I see a group of folks with a rope rushing to hang Galloway, I will be in a terrible moral dilemma.

Should I take a nap, or finish that novel I'm reading?

Surely you meant comic?

MarkCorrigan
10th May 2010, 09:03 AM
If I see a group of folks with a rope rushing to hang Galloway, I will be in a terrible moral dilemma.

Should I take a nap, or finish that novel I'm reading?

I'm I see a group of people rushing to hang George Galloway on a plane I'll...

Skeptic
11th May 2010, 02:09 PM
Gee, thanks, Mark...

dudalb
11th May 2010, 02:47 PM
Still no response from Galloway?
Damn, I was hoping for a really good meltdown......

Virus
11th May 2010, 02:57 PM
I think Galloway is the sort of monster that lurks within all extreme leftists. He's just not shy to let it out.

Undesired Walrus
11th May 2010, 09:20 PM
Still no response from Galloway?
Damn, I was hoping for a really good meltdown......

He has issued a follow up. He's going to be trying to break it in Hollywood (no I'm not joking) with 'Michael Moore-esc' films about Palestine.

Skeptic
11th May 2010, 10:01 PM
He has issued a follow up. He's going to be trying to break it in Hollywood (no I'm not joking) with 'Michael Moore-esc' films about Palestine.

Told you he'll claim it's all the evil zionists' fault.

Pardalis
12th May 2010, 12:45 AM
He has issued a follow up. He's going to be trying to break it in Hollywood (no I'm not joking) with 'Michael Moore-esc' films about Palestine.

It's bound to be a success, there's a huge market for that kind of trash.

Soapy Sam
12th May 2010, 02:08 AM
He's an infuriating gadfly.
I rather wish there were more like him in British politics.

On occasion, George reminds me of my favourite Labour politician (now retired), Tam Dalyell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tam_Dalyell
Both boshie buggers who go their own way. Both wrong as often as right, both very human.

JihadJane
12th May 2010, 04:27 AM
I think Galloway is the sort of monster that lurks within all extreme leftists. He's just not shy to let it out.

Sounds like a fairy tale. Watch out for the dragons!

dudalb
12th May 2010, 09:59 AM
He has issued a follow up. He's going to be trying to break it in Hollywood (no I'm not joking) with 'Michael Moore-esc' films about Palestine.


He might think he is the next Michael Moore, but he will end being the new Ed Wood.

Skeptic
12th May 2010, 12:58 PM
He might think he is the next Michael Moore, but he will end being the new Ed Wood.

Considering the stuff he believes about Israel, and the sources he considers credible, he can just lift Criswell's speech at the end of Plan 9 from Outer Space and put it at the end of his movie:

My friend, you have seen this incident based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?

...come to think of it, so can Michael Moore...

lionking
12th May 2010, 10:57 PM
I was wondering why the Galloway thread was resurrected, but am now delighted to see he has been trashed by the electorate. Farewell fool.

funk de fino
13th May 2010, 01:57 AM
I was wondering why the Galloway thread was resurrected, but am now delighted to see he has been trashed by the electorate. Farewell fool.

The man is no fool. A lying, despicable, bullying, two faced piece of crap maybe, but no fool.

richardm
13th May 2010, 02:26 AM
The man is no fool.

Well, he did go on Celebrity Big Brother, which is something of an indicator ;)

lionking
13th May 2010, 02:29 AM
The man is no fool. A lying, despicable, bullying, two faced piece of crap maybe, but no fool.
I bow to your superior understanding. ;)

JihadJane
13th May 2010, 02:32 AM
I bow to your superior understanding. ;)

FdF thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a "liar" so don't bow too low!

lionking
13th May 2010, 02:44 AM
FdF thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a "liar" so don't bow too low!
Care to respond to the latest EJ thread?

funk de fino
13th May 2010, 03:53 AM
FdF thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a "liar" so don't bow too low!

And JihadJane finds it to be a good idea to pretend to ignore me to save being proved wrong time and time again. I can understand how the ego of one so superior could be bruised by someone such as me.

peteweaver
13th May 2010, 04:33 AM
I cannot stand George Galloway. Even more so after he said suicide bombings were justified.
I am ashamed to be from the same island as him.

funk de fino
13th May 2010, 02:23 PM
I cannot stand George Galloway. Even more so after he said suicide bombings were justified.
I am ashamed to be from the same island as him.

At least you were not born in the same city as him.

Zeuzzz
14th May 2010, 04:10 AM
Even more so after he said suicide bombings were justified.


Where did he say this and in what context did he say it.

Im sure that he gave a very good argument to make a point as controversial as that.

I would imagine it would be along the lines him saying that if an occupying force with up to date top spec weapons and equiptment is massacring a populations families that instead of the bereaved simply bowing out and suffering the same fate they have a right to defend themselves. Since they have no army or good weapons to defend themselves with they are driven to such an unhumain extreme as to blow themselves up in the chance of avenging some of the suffering. A despicable act, yes, but if a person has had his entire family shot by occupying forces then these type of reactions are bound to happen.

Personally I think that a person who decides to avenge the death of loved ones and family members is a much more morally excusable position than killing people due to a misguided foreign policy and sycophantic patriotism. Of course, there are exceptions.

Ashles
14th May 2010, 04:23 AM
Where did he say this and in what context did he say it.

Im sure that he gave a very good argument to make a point as controversial as that.

I would imagine it would be along the lines him saying that if an occupying force with up to date top spec weapons and equiptment is massacring a populations families that instead of the bereaved simply bowing out and suffering the same fate they have a right to defend themselves. Since they have no army or good weapons to defend themselves with they are driven to such an unhumain extreme as to blow themselves up in the chance of avenging some of the suffering. A despicable act, yes, but if a person has had his entire family shot by occupying forces then these type of reactions are bound to happen.

Personally I think that a person who decides to avenge the death of loved ones and family members is a much more morally excusable position than killing people due to a misguided foreign policy and sycophantic patriotism. Of course, there are exceptions.


So in essence you are saying that you think suicide bombings are justified too?

JihadJane
14th May 2010, 04:23 AM
Where did he say this and in what context did he say it.

Im sure that he gave a very good argument to make a point as controversial as that.

I would imagine it would be along the lines him saying that if an occupying force with up to date top spec weapons and equiptment is massacring a populations families that instead of the bereaved simply bowing out and suffering the same fate they have a right to defend themselves. Since they have no army or good weapons to defend themselves with they are driven to such an unhumain extreme as to blow themselves up in the chance of avenging some of the suffering. A despicable act, yes, but if a person has had his entire family shot by occupying forces then these type of reactions are bound to happen.

Personally I think that a person who decides to avenge the death of loved ones and family members is a much more morally excusable position than killing people due to a misguided foreign policy and sycophantic patriotism. Of course, there are exceptions.


Well put. Unfortunately, ideologically-inspired cognitive dissonance makes your clear and simple analysis impossible to understand for many of our resident "skeptics".

Ashles
14th May 2010, 04:35 AM
ideologically-inspired cognitive dissonance

I think we might as well leave those four words as replacing most of your posts.

Zeuzzz
14th May 2010, 04:49 AM
So in essence you are saying that you think suicide bombings are justified too?


No, any act that takes away an innocent life is a despicable reprehensible act in my opinion.

However in the context I put it in, which is unfortunately the context under which the majority of suicide bombings occur, the suicide bombings yes would appear to be a far more justifyable act than the original murders that caused it.

sphenisc
14th May 2010, 05:03 AM
So in essence you are saying that you think suicide bombings are justified too?

No, he's saying they can be; hence the " if an occupying force ... they have a right to defend themselves. "

Ashles
14th May 2010, 05:11 AM
No, he's saying they can be; hence the " if an occupying force ... they have a right to defend themselves. "

Yes that was exactly what I thought he was saying.

Ashles
14th May 2010, 05:14 AM
However in the context I put it in, which is unfortunately the context under which the majority of suicide bombings occur, the suicide bombings yes would appear to be a far more justifyable act than the original murders that caused it.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider both actions unjustifiable?

Can we not find the provocation horrendous and the response? We may understand the response to a certain extent (and who knows what we would be driven to ourselves in the same situations) but that shouldn't mean we have to condone it any more than the action that caused it.

JihadJane
14th May 2010, 05:21 AM
I think we might as well leave those four words as replacing most of your posts.

Is this your way of denying that your own ideology influences your perceptions?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider both actions unjustifiable?

Can we not find the provocation horrendous and the response? We may understand the response to a certain extent (and who knows what we would be driven to ourselves in the same situations) but that shouldn't mean we have to condone it any more than the action that caused it.


Has Gorgeous G ever claimed that either the provocation or the response wasn't horrendous? He is an anti-war politician, after all.

sphenisc
14th May 2010, 05:29 AM
Justifiable homicide

Particularly relevant are items 1 and 3 in the list of "excuses".

Ashles
14th May 2010, 05:32 AM
Is this your way of denying that your own ideology influences your perceptions?

Obviously everyone's perceptions are influenced to some extent by their ideologies/beliefs. Only a liar would deny this.

But some are more so than others.

Has Gorgeous G ever claimed that either the provocation or the response wasn't horrendous? He is an anti-war politician, after all.

Therefore I repeat that neither action should be considered 'justified'.
The suicide bombs could be considered by some to be understandable but clealry some also believe the initial attacks are understandable. (Just for clarity I don't)

JihadJane
14th May 2010, 05:59 AM
Obviously everyone's perceptions are influenced to some extent by their ideologies/beliefs. Only a liar would deny this.

But some are more so than others.

People whose ideological beliefs support the the status quo tend to believe they are less influenced by their ideology.



Therefore I repeat that neither action should be considered 'justified'.
The suicide bombs could be considered by some to be understandable but clealry some also believe the initial attacks are understandable. (Just for clarity I don't)

Has Galloway ever called suicide bombings "justified"? I don't know whether he has or not but it seems that the word "justified" is bandied by those seeking to condemn Galloway et al rather than by Galloway himself. It appears to be an ideological reframing game.

Ashles
14th May 2010, 06:11 AM
People whose ideological beliefs support the the status quo tend to believe they are less influenced by their ideology.

I'm not sure how far we are getting from the point now or why you're moving goalposts around like this.

But, what the heck... evidence please for that statement.

Has Galloway ever called suicide bombings "justified"? I don't know whether he has or not but it seems that the word "justified" is bandied by those seeking to condemn Galloway et al rather than by Galloway himself. It appears to be an ideological reframing game.

I was responding to Zeuzzz's comments, in which he provides an imagined justification.
I also do not know if George Galloway said the bombings were justified. Would it make any difference to your opinion of Galloway if he had said that?
(ETA - Never mind - I see he has)

Virus
14th May 2010, 06:15 AM
He is an anti-war politician, after all.

He's not anti-war. He's pro-war but supports the other side.



Has Galloway ever called suicide bombings "justified"?

Yes.

"Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/galloway-says-murder-of-blair-would-be-justified-479788.html

Zeuzzz
14th May 2010, 08:45 AM
"Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified.


Anyone who follows the mossads policies on assassination, which seem to be murder any political opponents that they merely suspect may be planing acts of war or "terrorism", would have shot Tony Blair and George Bush long before the troops arrived in any country.

But luckily the mossad are nothing more than a corrupt racist terrorist group that work above the law angering Israels neighbours with assassinations and other means to a point where they retaliate; thus providing a prequisite for further Israeli wars, aid, funding and building of new settlements.

My opinion is any assassination is not a good thing. There are however, of course, some very rare occasions where assassination is the best option. For example Hitler. Or Stalin. Numerous others. But the reasons for assination have to be extremely compelling. For example if the imminent death of >1000 innocent people is due to one leader/dictators actions then I dont think that many people would rather that the dictator lives and the innocents die. To work properly the assassination has to be well justified to the general population retrospectively by whoever carries it out, and not cause any sort of rebellion. Nowadays the need for this is so rare that most (respectful) intelligence agencies have a no assassination policy (at least in public).

Now. Applying that logic to Blair and Bush whos decisions were responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples lives ... we are left with a paradox. And also left with the reason that Galloway probably said that statement.

I would not like to pretend I know this is the reason he said that, but I can imagine he would use a similar line of argument.

Skeptic
14th May 2010, 08:50 AM
Anyone who follows the mossads policies on assassination, which seem to be murder any political opponents that they merely suspect may be planing acts of war or "terrorism"

(Sigh)

You don't even know what "Mossad" means, now do you.

sphenisc
14th May 2010, 08:50 AM
Anyone who follows the mossads policies on assassination, which seem to be murder any political opponents that they merely suspect may be planing acts of war or "terrorism", would have shot Tony Blair and George Bush long before the troops arrived in any country.

But luckily the mossad are nothing more than a corrupt racist terrorist group that work above the law angering Israels neighbours with assassinations and other means to a point where they retaliate; thus providing a prequisite for further Israeli wars, aid, funding and building of new settlements.

My opinion is any assassination is not a good thing. There are however, of course, some very rare occasions where assassination is the best option. For example Hitler. Or Stalin. Numerous others. But the reasons for assination have to be extremely compelling. For example if the imminent death of >1000 innocent people is due to one leader/dictators actions then I dont think that many people would rather that the dictator lives and the innocents die. To work properly the assassination has to be well justified to the general population retrospectively by whoever carries it out, and not cause any sort of rebellion. Nowadays the need for this is so rare that most (respectful) intelligence agencies have a no assassination policy (at least in public).

Now. Applying that logic to Blair and Bush whos decisions were responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples lives ... we are left with a paradox. And also left with the reason that Galloway probably said that statement.

I would not like to pretend I know this is the reason he said that, but I can imagine he would use a similar line of argument.

Where's the paradox?

Lallante
14th May 2010, 08:52 AM
George Galloway is both:
one of the best and most effective Orators alive; and
a complete buffoon with deeply abhorrant views.

Zeuzzz
14th May 2010, 08:58 AM
I also do not know if George Galloway said the bombings were justified. Would it make any difference to your opinion of Galloway if he had said that?
(ETA - Never mind - I see he has)


His points are usually more like the following, quote:

"there was a general consensus that we must keep up our guard against the madness, nihilistic, murderous violence of this kind of event that happened today in glasgow airport, and almost happened outside a nightclub in london, but that we can not separate the rage that is producing these attacks from the foreign policy of our govenment. That was the overwhelming opinion of the listeners of the mother of all talk shows, and thats what you would expect; as its just simple common sense."

Is that justifying the bombings?

No.

Its pointing out the most obvious reason as to why they occured.

Zeuzzz
14th May 2010, 08:59 AM
Where's the paradox?


No paradox for me, the logic is quite simple, but I'm guessing that quite a few people on this forum would have a dilema with this point :)

Zeuzzz
14th May 2010, 09:05 AM
(Sigh)

You don't even know what "Mossad" means, now do you.


Avoiding points raised noted.

Patronisation of messengers intelligence, whilst ignoring the message, dually noted.

Skeptic
14th May 2010, 02:04 PM
Avoiding points raised noted.

Patronisation of messengers intelligence, whilst ignoring the message, dually noted.

Er, I'd say that's a "no", as in "No, I don't really know what 'Mossad' means".

This isn't "patronisation". I'm just pointing out that you don't know the first thing about the Mossad, except that you "know" how evil and corrupt and awful it is.

Zeuzzz
14th May 2010, 06:58 PM
This isn't "patronisation". I'm just pointing out that you don't know the first thing about the Mossad, except that you "know" how evil and corrupt and awful it is.

Ok enlighten me to on all the things i dont know.

WildCat
14th May 2010, 07:31 PM
Ok enlighten me to on all the things i dont know.
In order to save valuable bandwidth, why don't you list the things you do know instead?

Virus
14th May 2010, 10:30 PM
Anyone who follows the mossads policies on assassination, which seem to be murder any political opponents that they merely suspect may be planing acts of war or "terrorism", would have shot Tony Blair and George Bush long before the troops arrived in any country.



Blair and Bush are not terrorists and did not plan acts of terrorism. But if you want to peddle Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda propaganda that the "real" terrorists are western democracies then be my guest.

JihadJane
15th May 2010, 04:04 AM
He's not anti-war. He's pro-war but supports the other side

Please define what you mean by "war".


I'm not sure how far we are getting from the point now or why you're moving goalposts around like this.

Which goalposts have I moved?


But, what the heck... evidence please for that statement.

http://conium.org/~maccoun/MacCounPaletz2009PoliPsy.pdf



I was responding to Zeuzzz's comments, in which he provides an imagined justification.
I also do not know if George Galloway said the bombings were justified. Would it make any difference to your opinion of Galloway if he had said that?
(ETA - Never mind - I see he has)

I assume your ETA refers to this:


"Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified.

It is disingenuous to present this quote as a evidence of a blanket support for suicide bombings.

The normal objection to suicide bombings is that they disregard the lives of civilians or deliberately target them.

Galloway isn’t attempting to justify these kind of attacks. He is justifying the assassination of the instigators of the Iraq atrocity. The question of morality, in this case, isn’t about the morality of suicide bombing but about the morality of war. Suicide bombing is a weapon of war.

To be consistent while condemning the suicide bomb assassination that Galloway's questioner describes one would have to condemn, equally, any kind of military violence.

Blair and Bush are not terrorists and did not plan acts of terrorism. But if you want to peddle Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda propaganda that the "real" terrorists are western democracies then be my guest.

What would you call "Shock and Awe"?

WildCat
15th May 2010, 06:18 AM
What would you call "Shock and Awe"?
That was the campaign directed at military targets, wasn't it?

Compare/contrast to blowing up cafes, buses, etc.

funk de fino
15th May 2010, 06:18 AM
It is disingenuous to present this quote as a evidence of a blanket support for suicide bombings.

Caught out and having to move goalposts again. You're nothing if not predictable.

Galloway supports terrorists by saying the ones he likes are freedom fighters. The others are bad men.

If he is anti war he would not call for Arab armies to come to Iraq and fight against coalition forces. he would try to stop the war and tell everyone to lay down arms. He is a clown who has finally had to take his medicine.

His treatment on Michael Barrymore on Big Brother was despicable.

Comsat Angel
15th May 2010, 07:29 AM
Ok enlighten me to on all the things i dont know.

Okay.

1) George Galloway is an ex-MP.
2) The views of the British voting public don't seem as generous towards him as yours are.
3) He's going to have trouble replacing his 200,000 wage and expenses. (expect a "fact-finding" mission to some monied dictator quite soon!).
4) George has been worringly silent about his electoral defeat. Normally it's hard to stop him talking. I hope he's not fallen ill, poor chap.

JihadJane
15th May 2010, 07:33 AM
Okay.


4) George has been worringly silent about his electoral defeat. Normally it's hard to stop him talking. I hope he's not fallen ill, poor chap.

Why is it worrying?

Pardalis
15th May 2010, 07:37 AM
Please define what you mean by "war".

Please define what you mean by "define", "you" and "mean".

Pardalis
15th May 2010, 07:38 AM
Suicide bombing is a weapon of war.

So now you know what war means all of a sudden?

Matthew Best
15th May 2010, 07:48 AM
Is suicide bombing somehow worse per se than non-suicide bombing?

JihadJane
15th May 2010, 07:51 AM
So now you know what war means all of a sudden?

Do you?

Pardalis
15th May 2010, 07:53 AM
Do you?

Yes, and the deliberate targeting of civilians is not part of it.

JihadJane
15th May 2010, 07:59 AM
Yes, and the deliberate targeting of civilians is not part of it.

Yes it is. Read some history!

Pardalis
15th May 2010, 08:00 AM
Yes it is. Read some history!

Please define what you mean by "history".

JihadJane
15th May 2010, 08:05 AM
An established record or pattern of behavior.

Undesired Walrus
15th May 2010, 08:47 AM
Zuezz, the suicide bombers in Afghanistan are not the French Revolution. They are not spraying acid into the eyes of schoolgirls because an unjust occupation has made them do so. They do it because their ideology and viciousness is deeply embedded and predates the invasion. They aren't the french revolution.

geni
15th May 2010, 08:54 AM
That was the campaign directed at military targets, wasn't it?

Not really. Mostly aimed at civilian government infrastructure. Why the US chose to blow up a load of empty buildings is a bit of a mystry mind.

WildCat
15th May 2010, 09:45 AM
Not really. Mostly aimed at civilian government infrastructure. Why the US chose to blow up a load of empty buildings is a bit of a mystry mind.
"civilian government infrastructure"? :rolleyes:

Pardalis
15th May 2010, 10:21 AM
"civilian government infrastructure"? :rolleyes:

What we call an oxymoron.

geni
15th May 2010, 07:46 PM
What we call an oxymoron.

Nope. Any goverment infrastrute that isn't operated or used by the armed forces. For example schools are civilian.

Then you have a bunch of duel use stuff such as roads, railways and some kinds of port facilities and airports.

geni
15th May 2010, 07:48 PM
"civilian government infrastructure"? :rolleyes:

Tax offices, various civil service stuff. Has the advantage of being easy to find and since they generaly don't have kid or indeed anyone in them at night they can be blown up without inconvent TV pics.

JihadJane
16th May 2010, 04:29 AM
Zuezz, the suicide bombers in Afghanistan are not the French Revolution. They are not spraying acid into the eyes of schoolgirls because an unjust occupation has made them do so. They do it because their ideology and viciousness is deeply embedded and predates the invasion. They aren't the french revolution.

Suicide bombing didn't exist in Afghanistan before the invasion.

The "suicide bombers" in Afghanistan are frequently motivated by very personal experiences of the occupiers' violence, such as the death and abuse of family members.

They are, indeed, consciously resisting an unjust occupation and with the most effective means available to them.

geni
16th May 2010, 04:46 AM
Suicide bombing didn't exist in Afghanistan before the invasion.

Err Ahmad Shah Massoud was killed by a suicide bomber September 10, 2001.

JihadJane
16th May 2010, 06:05 AM
Err Ahmad Shah Massoud was killed by a suicide bomber September 10, 2001.


Imported from Tunisia

geni
16th May 2010, 07:10 AM
Imported from Tunisia

It was a sucidide bombing. It took place in afganistan. It took place before the invasion. Post hoc goalpost shifting is not a valid responce.

WildCat
16th May 2010, 08:18 AM
Nope. Any goverment infrastrute that isn't operated or used by the armed forces. For example schools are civilian.
OK, and which schools were bombed during the "shock and awe" phase?

carlitos
16th May 2010, 08:26 AM
Nope. Any goverment infrastrute that isn't operated or used by the armed forces. For example schools are civilian.

Then you have a bunch of duel use stuff such as roads, railways and some kinds of port facilities and airports.

In duels, they use guns.

Skeptic
16th May 2010, 08:52 AM
OK, and which schools were bombed during the "shock and awe" phase?

Before the war, a bunch of "peace activists" came to Iraq to assist Saddam against the evil American imperialists by offering themselves as "human shields" in schools, hospitals, etc.

When they realized Saddam plans to put them as "human shields" in places the coalition's forces really would target -- government offices, army bases, etc. -- they beat a hasty retreat back to the safe bosom of the evil imperialist western countries.

funk de fino
16th May 2010, 09:30 AM
Suicide bombing didn't exist in Afghanistan before the invasion.

The "suicide bombers" in Afghanistan are frequently motivated by very personal experiences of the occupiers' violence, such as the death and abuse of family members.

They are, indeed, consciously resisting an unjust occupation and with the most effective means available to them.

Against the wishes of the majority of the population.

Remember your false claims about the Afghans hating the Americans more than the Taliban?

geni
16th May 2010, 11:31 AM
OK, and which schools were bombed during the "shock and awe" phase?

Strawman there.

Heh although I'm not sure that there is anything under international law that outlaws bombing schools per se.

geni
16th May 2010, 11:32 AM
In duels, they use guns.

Gentlemen use swords.

Undesired Walrus
16th May 2010, 12:05 PM
Suicide bombing didn't exist in Afghanistan before the invasion.

The "suicide bombers" in Afghanistan are frequently motivated by very personal experiences of the occupiers' violence, such as the death and abuse of family members.

They are, indeed, consciously resisting an unjust occupation and with the most effective means available to them.

It would be impossible to say that the recent suicide bombings in Pakistan were the Taliban 'resisting an unjust occupation'. It's the same organisation that murders people in Afghanistan, and it isn't motivated by the injustice of an invasion.

The Taliban aren't the French resistance.

Pardalis
16th May 2010, 12:12 PM
Those unjust Aid workers...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/13/afghan-attack.html

Skeptic
16th May 2010, 01:18 PM
Now that he no longer even has to keep up a semblance of any appearance of decency, chances are Galloway will be officially shilling for some tinpot dictator for the money any day now. Certainly Saddam got his money's worth for the $300,000 or so he paid him in oil-for-food money.

Zeuzzz
16th May 2010, 02:35 PM
Now that he no longer even has to keep up a semblance of any appearance of decency, chances are Galloway will be officially shilling for some tinpot dictator for the money any day now. Certainly Saddam got his money's worth for the $300,000 or so he paid him in oil-for-food money.


Absolute codwash.

Galloway was falsely accused of this and the evidence was fabricated. He even won two court cases against tabloids in the UK after it for them publishing these lies, so dont try to link to them to prove it, as they had to pay him thousands in compensation and retract their claims.

He had to swear under oath in a senate commitee testimony against the charges and TOTALLY wiped the floor with them. If there had been the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence to prosecture galloway then they would have jumped on it, but after his testimony and the the amount of crimes he managed to counter claim the US adminstration were guilty of they dropped the case and tried to forget of the whole ordeal, which really blew up in their faces.

Watch his full testimony in these two videos here:

IyyGoPerzWc

3lINNad6Njs

pwnd.

mortimer
16th May 2010, 07:57 PM
pwnd.
BURN! pwnd! Also, yer momma!

Skeptic
16th May 2010, 10:13 PM
He had to swear under oath in a senate commitee testimony against the chargesYeah, and he wouldn't lie about something like THAT, would he?

Actually, the report in question (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmstnprv/909/90904.htm) is very damning to Galloway. While the House of Common's investigations didn't prove he got money personally, it is the case that

there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Oil for Food Programme was used by the Iraqi government, with Mr Galloway's connivance, to fund the campaigning activities of the Mariam Appeal. In acting as he did, Mr Galloway breached the advocacy rule and damaged the reputation of the House. We believe he was complicit in the concealment of the true source of the funds for the Mariam Appeal. He was also in our view reckless in the terms of the authority he gave Mr Fawaz Zureikat to act in his name in relation to the Mariam Appeal. Further he was clearly irresponsible in refusing to enquire into the source of Mr Zureikat's substantial donations.And above all

Mr Galloway could reasonably be considered to be influenced in how he pursued his parliamentary activities in relation to seeking the lifting of sanctions against Iraq....which is legalese for "Saddam bought the guy", which is precisely the point.

In short, he may be off on a technicality of not receiving the money personally (officially -- one of the funds he controls did), but he clearly was Saddam's tool.

If there had been the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence to prosecture galloway then they would have jumped on it,Just like if there had been the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence to prosecute Galloway for, I dunno, giving money and support to a murderous terrorist organization like Hamas, they would have jumped on it.

But he's still not in jail, so I guess all that stuff was an hallucination.

But oh, the things we learn by listening to Galloway, the brave beacon of truth. We learn, for example, that the Israelies are blue-eyed blondes (http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2010/01/tinpot-tyrant-aint-seen-nothin.html) (get it?) and that they drink the blood harvest the organs (http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/point/entry/providing_a_platform_for_bigotry) of non-Jews. Clearly, to judge from your posts, you consider him a reliable source about the Mossad (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/207223.stm), too.

I can see why he would protest that the whole oil-for-food scandal was fabricated. I mean, Saddam wasn't stupid: why pay good money to someone to praise terrorist bombing (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/08/galloway-praises-iraq-martyrs.html), support terrorist organizations (http://www.haaretz.com/news/british-mp-galloway-barred-from-canada-over-supporting-hamas-1.272583), spread blood libels about the Jews (http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2009/12/dark-echoes-of-holocaust.html) and in general act like a total loony declaring all kinds of Jewish international conspiracies (http://www.ww4report.com/node/1105) -- including the conspiracy to help bring Hitler to power -- when he clearly gladly does all that for free?

Someone like that can be counted to do his darnedest to support lifting the sanctions (so that Saddam could have continued to give Hamas & co. money for killing Jews) no matter what.

Saddam could have saved the money, if you ask me.

Comsat Angel
16th May 2010, 11:13 PM
Now that he no longer even has to keep up a semblance of any appearance of decency, chances are Galloway will be officially shilling for some tinpot dictator for the money any day now. Certainly Saddam got his money's worth for the $300,000 or so he paid him in oil-for-food money.


Beat you to it! See Item 3 in post 669. Even now, George's mobile is glowing red-hot with calls to various third world countries ...

Skeptic
16th May 2010, 11:21 PM
OK, who wants to take bets on which dictator he's going to be a shill for now?

My bet's on Syria or Iran, but there's such a rich field of genocidal thugs our brave "human rights" crusader can choose from...

Pardalis
17th May 2010, 12:09 AM
Kadhafi, I can imagine both of them in leotards drinking champagne coolies, doing eachothers toenails

Stout
17th May 2010, 08:41 AM
Just like if there had been the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence to prosecute Galloway for, I dunno, giving money and support to a murderous terrorist organization like Hamas, they would have jumped on it.

But he's still not in jail, so I guess all that stuff was an hallucination.



I'm curious as t why he wasn't charged with anything for that. Canada refused him entry to the country for specifically that reason. The far left, of course went ballistic as they see him as their golden boy in their war against, against..err, white people.

geni
17th May 2010, 12:17 PM
OK, who wants to take bets on which dictator he's going to be a shill for now?

My bet's on Syria or Iran, but there's such a rich field of genocidal thugs our brave "human rights" crusader can choose from...


The market for former MP's is kinda saturated right now. If you reall feel the need to buy one (perhaps you feel they match the curtains) there are better choices.

Ashles
18th May 2010, 02:52 AM
Which goalposts have I moved?
Ideologies have an effect on our interpretation of events.

Rather than simply agree with this (which would of course lead to the obvious acceptance that this would apply to you as well) you decided to change the subject to relative levels of ideological effect versus status quo.

As though it were even vaguely relevant to the discussion of defending suicide bombings. Which it isn't.


http://conium.org/~maccoun/MacCounPaletz2009PoliPsy.pdf

And then provided a link which didn't work.

It may have been slightly less disengenuous to accept that your beliefs shape your ideologies. Like anyone else.
But clearly you won't. And then even scrabble around to sort of try to imply your ideologies are less influenced because you are somehow less for the Status Quo.
Interesting.
Whatever that link does or doesn't show, you sure aren't evidence towards it.

It is disingenuous to present this quote as a evidence of a blanket support for suicide bombings.

:rolleyes:
And now we have a strawman to act as goalkeeper to your moving goalposts.
Nobody said 'blanket supprt'.
But he clearly has defended in principle suicide bombing in certain circumstances.

The whole point of my comments (which I am not surprised you have forgotten with all your manouvering to change the subject and talk about irrelevencies) was that suicide bombings should not ever be considered justifiable.

The normal objection to suicide bombings is that they disregard the lives of civilians or deliberately target them.

There is also the small fact it should be considered abhorrent someone is blowing themselves up.

Galloway isn’t attempting to justify these kind of attacks. He is justifying the assassination of the instigators of the Iraq atrocity. The question of morality, in this case, isn’t about the morality of suicide bombing but about the morality of war. Suicide bombing is a weapon of war.

To be consistent while condemning the suicide bomb assassination that Galloway's questioner describes one would have to condemn, equally, any kind of military violence.

No - that would be consistent in order to follow your argumernt. Which we are not.
In order to be consistent one has to condemn all suicide bombing.
There that wasn't difficult was it?

Zach Aviv
18th May 2010, 08:07 PM
OK, who wants to take bets on which dictator he's going to be a shill for now?

My bet's on Syria or Iran, but there's such a rich field of genocidal thugs our brave "human rights" crusader can choose from...

Galloway, an intelligent man, was a handicap to our cause Skeptic. You should not worry about him any more. We Jews used our power in the Labour party to remove him. You will be pleased I know. His performance in front of the senate was admirable but he is an impotent gentile now. He was ridiculed in the UK because of the Big Brother TV program. We orchestrated that. One of our more off the wall results. :)

Zeuzzz
18th May 2010, 08:21 PM
Even now, George's mobile is glowing red-hot with calls to various third world countries ...


Yes indeed, charity work and funding for war torn people in poorer third world countries take up a considerable amount of his time. He's done some really good work.

Undesired Walrus
19th May 2010, 12:22 AM
Zuezzz, how do you feel about Galloway's suport for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of 2 Million Afghans? Why didn't he care for Human rights then?

Zeuzzz
19th May 2010, 01:06 AM
I dont know, I did not know that this was his opinion. I'm not George Galloway myself you know.

If you could elaborate a bit more and explain why his opinion is so bad I might be able to see why he said it. This is an area of history (late soviet union) im admittedly quite ignorant of, though since George lived through it I'm sure he knows the facts.

Undesired Walrus
19th May 2010, 03:14 AM
It's the hypocrisy Zuezzz. Galloway decries an invasion of Middle Eastern nations today, frequently acting in a self righteous manner by declaring those who support such wars as 'having the blood of X number of X', while previously supporting a palpably unjust, imperialist war which led to the deaths of 2 Million Afghans, the displacement of 5 Million more, and the birth of the Taliban.

Can you not see how he has little integrity?

JihadJane
19th May 2010, 03:20 AM
It was a sucidide bombing. It took place in afganistan. It took place before the invasion. Post hoc goalpost shifting is not a valid responce.

I'd say you are nit-picking, actually, about one isolated incident. Suicide bombing wasn't a tactic used in Afghanistan before the invasion and occupation.

It would be impossible to say that the recent suicide bombings in Pakistan were the Taliban 'resisting an unjust occupation'. It's the same organisation that murders people in Afghanistan, and it isn't motivated by the injustice of an invasion.

The Taliban aren't the French resistance.

Sorry, your approach is Cowboys-and-Indians simplistic:

'Taliban: The Indistinguishable Enemy

The US-led occupation of Afghanistan has transformed the once-reviled Taliban into freedom fighters for the Pashtun people' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/16/taliban-indistinguishable-enemy-afghanistan)

Due to US control of the government and the rampant US slaughter of civilians by drone invasion most Pakistanis now consider the US to be an enemy within their borders.

Times Square Bomber Popped a Bubble
Not surprisingly, since we are conducting a virtual war inside their country, 64 percent of Pakistanis view the United States as an enemy. (http://www.otherwords.org/articles/times_square_bomber_popped)

JihadJane
19th May 2010, 04:09 AM
Ideologies have an effect on our interpretation of events.

Rather than simply agree with this (which would of course lead to the obvious acceptance that this would apply to you as well) you decided to change the subject to relative levels of ideological effect versus status quo.

As though it were even vaguely relevant to the discussion of defending suicide bombings. Which it isn't.

Ideological beliefs are relevant to all political subjects and to suicide bombing in particular, which is a favorite toy of ideologically-inspired propagandists.

I made a general comment about the futility of Zeuzzz' efforts to introduce objectivity into the discussion. You then personalized the issue.

Everyone's perceptions are influenced by their ideological beliefs. What are so special about mine?

Furthermore, I very much doubt that you even know what my ideological beliefs are.



And then provided a link which didn't work.

Works fine for me.

It may have been slightly less disengenuous to accept that your beliefs shape your ideologies. Like anyone else.
But clearly you won't. And then even scrabble around to sort of try to imply your ideologies are less influenced because you are somehow less for the Status Quo.
Interesting.
Whatever that link does or doesn't show, you sure aren't evidence towards it.

See above



:rolleyes:
And now we have a strawman to act as goalkeeper to your moving goalposts.
Nobody said 'blanket supprt'.

Rubbish. The proposition is that Galloway justifies suicide bombing, i.e. blanket support.

But he clearly has defended in principle suicide bombing in certain circumstances.

In one particular circumstance: an assassination with no "collateral damage".



The whole point of my comments (which I am not surprised you have forgotten with all your manouvering to change the subject and talk about irrelevencies) was that suicide bombings should not ever be considered justifiable.

Why not?



There is also the small fact it should be considered abhorrent someone is blowing themselves up.

Why? It's their life.


Is it any more abhorrent that someone else blowing them up?


No - that would be consistent in order to follow your argumernt. Which we are not.
In order to be consistent one has to condemn all suicide bombing.
There that wasn't difficult was it?

Why do you condemn all suicide bombing? Sacrificing one's life for a common cause is seen as heroic when "our" side does it.


~~~~~~~~~


It's the hypocrisy Zuezzz. Galloway decries an invasion of Middle Eastern nations today, frequently acting in a self righteous manner by declaring those who support such wars as 'having the blood of X number of X', while previously supporting a palpably unjust, imperialist war which led to the deaths of 2 Million Afghans, the displacement of 5 Million more, and the birth of the Taliban.

Can you not see how he has little integrity?

Can you provide a link to where Galloway supported the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? I'm not saying he didn't but I would like to see the context. It wasn't an uncommon position when Russia first acted to protect the Afghan government.

It would also be helpful if you provided a link to where Galloway defends his stance.

Undesired Walrus
19th May 2010, 05:04 AM
Sorry, your approach is Cowboys-and-Indians simplistic:

'Taliban: The Indistinguishable Enemy

It's really not. Jihadism is extremely complex, and doesn't come down to either an issue of them being blood-thirsty murderers who are born evil or poor divided people fighting against an unjust enemy. Those are neither of my positions.

(No idea why that is underlined)


The US-led occupation of Afghanistan has transformed the once-reviled Taliban into freedom fighters for the Pashtun people' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/16/taliban-indistinguishable-enemy-afghanistan)

Due to US control of the government and the rampant US slaughter of civilians by drone invasion most Pakistanis now consider the US to be an enemy within their borders.

Times Square Bomber Popped a Bubble
Not surprisingly, since we are conducting a virtual war inside their country, 64 percent of Pakistanis view the United States as an enemy. (http://www.otherwords.org/articles/times_square_bomber_popped)

Yet the Taliban are deeply unpopular in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If the Taliban cared so much about the murder of those in Pakistan, why do they keep murdering innocent people in their hundreds in Islamabad?

Why didn't the Times Square Bomber go and attack the Taliban?

Undesired Walrus
19th May 2010, 05:38 AM
Incidently, here is Galloway denying the Tiananmen Square Massacre:

GYL9GhpwpJw&feature=related

And the genocide in Darfur:

R77g1o5K428&feature=related

Ashles
19th May 2010, 07:16 AM
blah

It's interesting how you continuously seem happy to disagree with the poistions of others while being so strangely reticent to comment on your own.

I guess we'll leave it that I personally find all suicide bombing abhorrent and unjustifiable and you... appear to enjoy arguing for its own sake.

Comsat Angel
19th May 2010, 10:12 AM
Yes indeed, charity work and funding for war torn people in poorer third world countries take up a considerable amount of his time. He's done some really good work.

The voting public don't think so.

(Dunno if parading around on Big Brother counts as "charity work").

Skeptic
19th May 2010, 10:15 AM
Incidently, here is Galloway denying the Tiananmen Square Massacre:

And the genocide in Darfur:

...and supporting the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and...

Galloway's definitions of "human rights" is "let the dictators kill anybody they feel like! What's the big deal, you EVIL IMPERIALISTS!"

Pardalis
19th May 2010, 10:16 AM
Zuezzz, how do you feel about Galloway's suport for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of 2 Million Afghans? Why didn't he care for Human rights then?

:bump2

Skeptic
19th May 2010, 10:16 AM
(Dunno if parading around on Big Brother counts as "charity work").

Well, it probably made many people who considered going on the show to reconsider and do something more useful with their lives...

Skeptic
19th May 2010, 10:17 AM
:bump2

Zeuzz claims he never knew that was Galloway's position.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure, buddy. We believe you...

Undesired Walrus
19th May 2010, 10:41 AM
Whether you agreed with his views or not, I can't see how you could come away from watching his appearence on Big Brother without coming to the conclusion that he was a thoroughly unpleasent and vile Human being.

His utter, sneering contempt for anyone who shares a different viewpoint is a far cry from notable and worthy defenders of Human rights.

Watching his parade around in a pink leotard while his constituents -some of the poorest in the nation- go without a voice, you realise he's no Aung San Suu Kyi.

geni
19th May 2010, 10:54 AM
I'd say you are nit-picking, actually, about one isolated incident. Suicide bombing wasn't a tactic used in Afghanistan before the invasion and occupation.


By that argument nelson's tactics at the Battle of Trafalgar were not tactics used during the napolonic wars.

JihadJane
20th May 2010, 02:17 AM
By that argument nelson's tactics at the Battle of Trafalgar were not tactics used during the napolonic wars.



Perhaps you could inform us about the history of suicide bombing in Afghanistan before the Anglo/US invasion and occupation.

It's really not. Jihadism is extremely complex, and doesn't come down to either an issue of them being blood-thirsty murderers who are born evil or poor divided people fighting against an unjust enemy. Those are neither of my positions.

(No idea why that is underlined).

What is your position, apart from that they are not the French Resistance?



Yet the Taliban are deeply unpopular in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If the Taliban cared so much about the murder of those in Pakistan, why do they keep murdering innocent people in their hundreds in Islamabad?

Why didn't the Times Square Bomber go and attack the Taliban?

Because the US are perceived as death-dealing foreign invaders and occupiers. How could that be?!

Have you found a reference to provide context for Galloway's support for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan yet?

lionking
20th May 2010, 02:36 AM
Have you found a reference to provide context for Galloway support for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan yet?





Context? Don't you mean some way to contort Galloway's clear and unambiguous statements to align with your worldview?

JihadJane
20th May 2010, 02:37 AM
It's interesting how you continuously seem happy to disagree with the poistions of others while being so strangely reticent to comment on your own.

Are you unable to answer my questions?

I guess we'll leave it that I personally find all suicide bombing abhorrent and unjustifiable and you... appear to enjoy arguing for its own sake.

Do you find other kinds of bombs equally abhorrent and unjustifiable?

Context? Don't you mean some way to contort Galloway's clear and unambiguous statements to align with your worldview?

Why the personalization?

I mean a record of what he actually said...


Incidently, here is Galloway denying the Tiananmen Square Massacre:

GYL9GhpwpJw&feature=related

And the genocide in Darfur:

R77g1o5K428&feature=related

Whatever happened to measured, objective documentation?

Why are these videos made in the style of B-movie propaganda?

Pardalis
20th May 2010, 04:15 AM
Whatever happened to measured, objective documentation?

Why are these videos made in the style of B-movie propaganda?

His words are loud and clear.

Undesired Walrus
20th May 2010, 04:35 AM
What surprises me is that Galloway isn't the only person who stands up against the wars in Iraq and objects to the foriegn policy in Israel. It may be the loudest and most boorish, but to follow him rather than someone more worthy and calm is puzzling.

Skeptic
20th May 2010, 10:35 AM
What surprises me is that Galloway isn't the only person who stands up against the wars in Iraq and objects to the foriegn policy in Israel. It may be the loudest and most boorish, but to follow him rather than someone more worthy and calm is puzzling.

No puzzle. Opposition to Israel's existence (which is what Galloway is about, not opposition to any particular policy) and anything the USA does is really a rehash of the 1960s Soviet propaganda. It reminds many people of their "revolutionary" youth.

Naturally they prefer someone who gives them the same good ol' time soviet propaganda without watering it down, complete with support of the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, of every loony dictator the USA is against, etc., instead of someone who reached his conclusions based on looking at facts (whether or not one agrees with their analysis is another issue).

It's an emotional, not rational, preference -- the same sort of motivation that makes people prefer fundamentalist snake-handling churches to moderate mainline ones.

funk de fino
20th May 2010, 12:28 PM
Because the US are perceived as death-dealing foreign invaders and occupiers. How could that be?!

Yet they are still more popular with the Afghans thn the Taliban.

funk de fino
20th May 2010, 12:33 PM
What surprises me is that Galloway isn't the only person who stands up against the wars in Iraq and objects to the foriegn policy in Israel. It may be the loudest and most boorish, but to follow him rather than someone more worthy and calm is puzzling.

Not if you take note of the Galloway supporters that seem to post here. My brother is a bit of a Galloway fanboy. Once he was shown some of his more ridiculous antics he soon gave up defending him.

Darth Rotor
21st May 2010, 11:35 AM
Perhaps you could inform us about the history of suicide bombing in Afghanistan before the Anglo/US invasion and occupation.
You seem to have missed the point on how Massoud died, yet again.

As to the image of the US in Pakistan, before 9-11, it wasn't particularly good, nor particularly bad, but I never got the impression that they liked America. I got to meet their Chief of Naval Staff back in about 1992. (Or was it 1993?) The interaction we had with his staff, as compared to the people who worked with Chief of Naval Staff from Thailand, was at neutral to wary on their part. The Thais were pretty much open and warm.

It was a fairly short visit and interaction both times, but the difference in tone and atmoshpere was striking. I'd need to dig deeper into memory, but our Congress may at the time have been suspending the release of a couple of old frigates for them that we'd previously promised to simply give them. We were on and off with the Pakistanis over such things for as long as I can remember.

I am personally not surprised to see polls from Pakistan being hostile to America. Since about 2008, the open use of American assets to strike into Pakistani territory, which their government can't control too well, can't sit very well with a lot of Pakistanis. We are foreigners.

This should come as no surprise to anyone.

What is going on, however, is not a popularity contest. It's a low grade civil war within Pakistan, which seems to have spilled over from Afghanistan.

DR

Zeuzzz
26th May 2010, 05:05 PM
Galloway does not support the Taliban, neither does he support Hamas, he can often be quoted saying things that can be portrayed as this as he supports peoples right to defense. If that means that an afghanistani whos village has been invaded by occupying forces and has maybe lost some relatives to occupying forces, naturally this person would feel like he has to stop this happening. As a lot of afghanis do. Thus when he fires at troops galloway supports his right to do this, even though troops might classify him as taliban.

I think that most afghanis are a bit confused about why forces are there. The Taliban are awful regressive people but afghanistan was far better under their rule than post invasion. I dont support the Taliban, neither does galloway, he sees them as individuals with rights to defence.

WildCat
26th May 2010, 05:53 PM
You seem to have missed the point on how Massoud died, yet again.
I don't think you'll ever get Jane to even admit that al Qaeda killed Massoud.

Skeptic
27th May 2010, 03:05 AM
Galloway does not support the Taliban, neither does he support Hamas

Wellllll, Hamas apparently disagrees (http://www.haaretz.com/news/hamas-official-hails-british-mp-george-galloway-as-hero-in-gaza-1.271762). So does the Canadian government (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/20/george-galloway-banned-canada) which banned him from entering Canada for supporting Hamas, after Galloway gave the Hamas-run government of Gaza (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVfkS_BAzf-CcTYE6baYi9PN5jwA) cars and cash.

How can you, exactly, support Hamas more than by going to Gaza, praising it, and giving it money and cars? That's exactly what, for instance, Iran does.

Apart from actually killing Jews (preferably while blowing yourself up in the process), I mean.

Undesired Walrus
27th May 2010, 04:15 AM
Galloway does not support the Taliban, neither does he support Hamas, he can often be quoted saying things that can be portrayed as this as he supports peoples right to defense.

What are the Taliban defending exactly? They certainly care little for the suffering of the Afghans.

The Taliban are awful regressive people but afghanistan was far better under their rule than post invasion.

Quite a statement here Zeuzzz. How do you justify it?

Zeuzzz
27th May 2010, 05:23 AM
Wellllll, Hamas apparently disagrees (http://www.haaretz.com/news/hamas-official-hails-british-mp-george-galloway-as-hero-in-gaza-1.271762). So does the Canadian government (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/20/george-galloway-banned-canada) which banned him from entering Canada for supporting Hamas, after Galloway gave the Hamas-run government of Gaza (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVfkS_BAzf-CcTYE6baYi9PN5jwA) cars and cash.


Yeah the aid convoy was pretty sucessful, and paid for by the british population. Really helped the palestinians after the war.

George puts his positions on the canada issue rather well in these two clips

I-WxdC77qWs

Canada ban: Galloway faces his accusers a Jewish Defence League (JDL) "Terrorist"
fAm7rfHKSyY

WildCat
27th May 2010, 06:05 AM
Yeah the aid convoy was pretty sucessful, and paid for by the british population. Really helped the palestinians after the war.

George puts his positions on the canada issue rather well in these two clips
Really? You found those clips favorable to Galloway?

Skeptic
27th May 2010, 01:35 PM
Really? You found those clips favorable to Galloway?

The first video summary:

Interviewer: "What would you say to the charge that you support terrorism?"

Galloway: "The evil JDL is after me! Bush is evil! zionism is evil! I'm not an antisemite!"

The second video summary:

Galloway: "Hamas and Hizbullah are democratically elected political forces".

Yeah, really convincing there.

I fail to see anything in those videos that has Galloway in any way denying the obvious truth -- namely, that he gave money and equipment to a terrorist organization whose openly and repeatedly expressed goal is genocide.

dudalb
27th May 2010, 02:23 PM
Taking any bets as to how long until Galloway comes out in support of North Korea in the current crisis....unless he has already done so.

funk de fino
27th May 2010, 02:23 PM
Galloway does not support the Taliban, neither does he support Hamas, he can often be quoted saying things that can be portrayed as this as he supports peoples right to defense. If that means that an afghanistani whos village has been invaded by occupying forces and has maybe lost some relatives to occupying forces, naturally this person would feel like he has to stop this happening. As a lot of afghanis do. Thus when he fires at troops galloway supports his right to do this, even though troops might classify him as taliban.

He picks and chooses what terrorists he calls freedom fighters.

I think that most afghanis are a bit confused about why forces are there. The Taliban are awful regressive people but afghanistan was far better under their rule than post invasion. I dont support the Taliban, neither does galloway, he sees them as individuals with rights to defence.

This is complete poppycock. Try checking the survey I gave JihadJane previously that debunked that crap.

JihadJane
28th May 2010, 03:09 AM
His words are loud and clear.

I could make a similar video "proving" that the US committed genocide in Iraq.

It would also be interesting to see your evidence for the claim that there was a massacre in Tiananmen Square.

lionking
28th May 2010, 03:13 AM
I could make a similar video "proving" that the US committed genocide in Iraq.

It would also be interesting to see your evidence for the claim that there was a massacre in Tiananmen Square.
You are joking aren't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989


An intelligence report received by the Soviet politburo estimated that 3,000 protesters were killed, according to a document found in the Soviet archive.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989#cite_note-0)


I would have thought the source would be good enough for you.

JihadJane
28th May 2010, 03:31 AM
You are joking aren't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

Did you bother to read what it says in your link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989)?

BBC 2 June 2009 James Miles, who was the BBC's Beijing correspondent at the time, stated:

I and others conveyed the wrong impression. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square… Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops (Only a handful of journalists were on hand to witness this moment…

Sinomania maintain that there was a Spanish film crew in the square who filmed the last 5000 students leaving the square just before dawn on June 4 after negotiating safe passage with the military. Richard Roth of CBS reported that he and a colleague were on the south portico of the Great Hall of the People (which forms one of the borders of the Square)led by Richard Roth. In the words of eyewitness CBS news correspondent Richard Roth:

"Derek Williams and I were driven in a pair of army jeeps right through the square, almost along its full length, and into the Forbidden City. Dawn was just breaking. There were hundreds of troops in the square ... But we saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a "massacre" had recently occurred in that place... some have found it uncomfortable that all this conforms with what the Chinese government has always claimed, perhaps with a bit of sophistry: that there was no "massacre in Tiananmen Square."

On the morning of 5 June protesters tried to enter the blocked square but were shot at by the soldiers. The soldiers shot them in the back when they were running away. These actions were repeated several times.


I would have thought the source would be good enough for you.

Why would you have thought that, lionking?


There are various estimates (listed in your wikipedia link - see Number of deaths) about how many people died during the suppression of the protests but there is a general agreement that most (including soldiers), if not all, died not in Tiananmen Square but in battles in surrounding streets.

lionking
28th May 2010, 03:35 AM
Cherry picking champion just announced.....

JihadJane
28th May 2010, 03:37 AM
Cherry picking champion just announced.....

Where, in your link, does it show that there was a massacre in Tiananmen Square?

DC
28th May 2010, 03:39 AM
Roflmao

lionking
28th May 2010, 03:40 AM
Roflmao
Anything to add on George Galloway? Didn't think so.

lionking
28th May 2010, 03:43 AM
I mean, seriously, is there a genuine debate about there not being killings (if massacre is too emotive word for some) in Tiananmen Square?

DC
28th May 2010, 03:51 AM
Anything to add on George Galloway? Didn't think so.

whats to add about a guy that prefers Celebrity Big Brother over actually do the job he was elected for?