PDA

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


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

JihadJane
28th May 2010, 03:54 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?

Not if you ignore the information that you yourself have linked to.

lionking
28th May 2010, 03:56 AM
Cherries, cherries....

DC
28th May 2010, 03:57 AM
Cherries, cherries....

but, when you leave away the parts pointed out by JJ, from your link, wouldnt that be also cherry picking in the other direction?

lionking
28th May 2010, 04:07 AM
Fine. You DC also denies deaths in Tiananmen Square. Good to know.

DC
28th May 2010, 04:09 AM
Fine. You DC also denies deaths in Tiananmen Square. Good to know.

no i dont, but i would not claim my oppinion is based on facts, its more based on my dislike against that totalitarian regime there, and the one video i saw as a kid and will never forget, the famous one, the guy standing in front of the tank. I never doubtet it, and actually when i read JJ's quotes, it was the first time i realized that some have other oppinions about it.

funk de fino
28th May 2010, 04:14 AM
The scumbag Galloway was moving goalposts much like we have just seen a poster here do. It was only when he was caught red handed telling lies about there being no massacre, that he shifted to no massacre in the Square.

He is technically correct with his goalpost shift, as the massacre took pace just outside the square. It takes nothing away from the fact he was initially trying to deny a heinous act took place.

Comsat Angel
28th May 2010, 07:13 AM
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.

That depends on what currency they pay him in!

dudalb
28th May 2010, 09:40 AM
The scumbag Galloway was moving goalposts much like we have just seen a poster here do. It was only when he was caught red handed telling lies about there being no massacre, that he shifted to no massacre in the Square.

He is technically correct with his goalpost shift, as the massacre took pace just outside the square. It takes nothing away from the fact he was initially trying to deny a heinous act took place.

And don't forget his "The Day The Soviet Union Fell Was The Saddest Day Of My Life" statement.
For all he recent support of Islamic FUndamentalism, at heart Galloway is good old fashioned Hard Line Marxist.

funk de fino
30th May 2010, 02:19 PM
Apparently he is on Question Time this week. Should be interesting.

Undesired Walrus
1st June 2010, 04:23 AM
Apparently he is on Question Time this week. Should be interesting.

:rolleyes:

And in the week in which Israel is in the news.

Given that Abbott and Portillo are no longer on This Week, replaced by David Davis and Hazel Blears (WTF?), my politics evening will be reduced to Newsnight alone.

I hope 'Former MP' George Galloway is used, not 'Palestinian freedom fighter' as he'd probably prefer to be known as. It must be a source of disappointment for him that he'll be on a panel with nobody (presumably) defending Israel.

Pardalis
9th June 2010, 03:52 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.

Those brave Taliban fighting the evil occupation... :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/06/09/afghanistan.wedding.bomb/index.html?hpt=T1

Now they're attacking weddings!

How is Jihad Jane going to justify this one?

Undesired Walrus
9th June 2010, 04:09 PM
How is Jihad Jane going to justify this one?

Blowback etc.

Titanic Explorer
11th June 2010, 10:16 AM
Galloway is absolute scum...

He's a traitor to the people of the United Kingdom,and is supportive of fascist and theocratic governments wherever he finds them.I really hope this man is arrested and charged with high treason....

I notice he has a large following among rabid Jew bashers,as well as 9/11 Truthers. I don't know if Galloway is a Truther, but it's clear he doesn't blame Islamic terroists for 7/7 and 9/11

Titanic Explorer
11th June 2010, 12:00 PM
Not a penny. And he said so under oath. They would have found out if he had. It was all fabricated. You wont be able to prove it if the US govenment and intelligence cant my friend. :)

Christopher Hitchens would disagree

Zeuzzz
19th November 2012, 07:14 AM
I know. But they do a pretty damn crap job of that dont they?! For each civilian Israel accidentally kills it creates five more hate driven people to get revenge. Viscous cycle. Solution: Stop the killing.

They have a large army and miliary power. Hamas are like toy soldiers firing out of date and inaccurate weapons.

This thread is nearly a year or so old now. And I have yet to find any coherent reason why such a peace loving and equality based politician is all bad as the news and papers imply.

The tabloids have been awful to him in the past for questioning why the WAR? In various contexts. He sued on three occasions, and won each one in court. Doubly hilarious.

A video compiled by him and shared with the anonymous group a few days ago

Typical battle has going with the biased print tabloids [url=Best of George Galloway VS the Mainstream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4rNZyM73Wo[/url)

To me, Galloway is a fresh breath or air in a sewage system of politicians so inchage of their economy an big business that forget about that the people will think if this keep happening. They are in a cesspit of con courageous politicos,

Zeuzzz
19th November 2012, 07:23 AM
Christopher Hitchens would disagree


The only time I clearly watch him definitely loose a debate was with George. I don't think hypocritchens experted the well educated 'much than just anti war' politician he got into.

Not one of Chritchens best speeces, George directly point pouit the print bias and horotry he has chosen to mess, and wind every argument. hands down. Have you watched this one?

Virus
20th November 2012, 12:26 AM
This thread is nearly a year or so old now. And I have yet to find any coherent reason why such a peace loving and equality based politician is all bad as the news and papers imply.


Because this:

Mlt4q3DPpeQ

Craig B
20th November 2012, 05:40 AM
Galloway is absolute scum...

He's a traitor to the people of the United Kingdom,and is supportive of fascist and theocratic governments wherever he finds them.I really hope this man is arrested and charged with high treason....

I notice he has a large following among rabid Jew bashers,as well as 9/11 Truthers. I don't know if Galloway is a Truther, but it's clear he doesn't blame Islamic terroists for 7/7 and 9/11 I really don't like Galloway. But I'm interested in your last point. Who does Galloway say did in fact perpetrate these outrages, if not Islamist terrorists?

The Don
20th November 2012, 06:54 AM
I really don't like Galloway. But I'm interested in your last point. Who does Galloway say did in fact perpetrate these outrages, if not Islamist terrorists?

IIRC it's not that they didn't perpetrate the outrages but rather that they weren't to blame


edited to add....

I recalled incorrectly, he did place the blame for 7/7 at least at the door of Islamic extremists

I condemn the act that was committed this morning. I have no need to speculate about its authorship. It is absolutely clear that Islamist extremists, inspired by the al-Qaeda world outlook, are responsible. I condemn it utterly as a despicable act, committed against working people on their way to work, without warning, on tubes and buses. Let there be no equivocation: the primary responsibility for this morning’s bloodshed lies with the perpetrators of those acts… The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), in an otherwise fine speech, described today’s events as “unpredictable”. They were not remotely unpredictable. Our own security services predicted them and warned the Government that if we [invaded Iraq] we would be at greater risk from terrorist attacks such as the one that we have suffered this morning… Despicable, yes; but not unpredictable. It was entirely predictable and, I predict, it will not be the last.

Zeuzzz
20th November 2012, 06:59 AM
Because this:

Mlt4q3DPpeQ


You racist?

He gets on pretty well with the worldwide Muslim community due to his compassionate nature and amount of time he's spent in the arabic world studying. He understands them better than hardly any other UK politician.

I notice that the video is from one of the two notorious Galloway name smearers on youtube. Both upload out of context lies about Galloway, or somehow give a wrong impression then disable comments or ratings straight away. Extremely poor form, even to link to it let alone watch it and believe it shows anything significant.

Stick to the videos with a green bar and comments and you can't go far wrong in terms of doctored smear videos. His argument with the Senate is hilarious. So is his rant about Israel on sky. So is his shouting at a NAZI on his radio show.

Craig B
20th November 2012, 07:00 AM
IIRC it's not that they didn't perpetrate the outrages but rather that they weren't to blame
edited to add....
I recalled incorrectly, he did place the blame for 7/7 at least at the door of Islamic extremists Yes I thought I remembered his having done so. I still don't like him, but he's far too clever to deny reality when it stares us in the face. He "spins" it. But he's not a complete fool.

ETA. He blames "Islamist" extremists. That's the preferred, and I think correct, terminology.

DreadNiK
20th November 2012, 07:06 AM
my view on George Galloway? If someone set him on fire I'd laugh and watch...

Zeuzzz
20th November 2012, 07:10 AM
Nice.

Same as with muslims? At least some people give them a western voice that's easy to publicly hear. He's basically been a political translator for decades. If people don't like the message he gives them, at least don't blame the messenger.

DreadNiK
20th November 2012, 07:29 AM
Nice.

Same as with muslims? At least some people give them a western voice that's easy to publicly hear. He's basically been a political translator for decades. If people don't like the message he gives them, at least don't blame the messenger.

I seriously hope for the sake of Muslims everywhere (or rather, the sake of everyone else) that his 'political translations' are horrifically inaccurate...

I struggle to understand how people like him are not immediately seen by everyone as the egotistical, cynical and intellectually dishonest scumbags that they are - he's basically the islamic extremist version of David Icke - incredibly articulate but devoid of reasoning

Zeuzzz
20th November 2012, 07:34 AM
Unproved hyperbole.

Next.

Craig B
20th November 2012, 07:58 AM
my view on George Galloway? If someone set him on fire I'd laugh and watch... I see. On what grounds then can you condemn these heartless monsters who can slaughter people, watch and laugh? Try as much as possible to be unlike them. That's my advice.

DreadNiK
20th November 2012, 11:11 AM
I see. On what grounds then can you condemn these heartless monsters who can slaughter people, watch and laugh? Try as much as possible to be unlike them. That's my advice.

Note - I may not have been entirely serious, just hyperbolising to illustrate that I really f**king hate Galloway...

Also note I said 'if someone were to...' rather than that I would. I would actually like to think I'd try and save him, if he were set on fire, as no human deserves to be burnt alive (well....at least George Galloway, for all his failings, probably doesn't) but I wouldn't be happy about it :P

Zeuzzz
20th November 2012, 11:32 AM
You haven't even thrown him in a freezing lake yet to test if he's a wizard or not yet.

Why hate him, specifically?

HoverBoarder
20th November 2012, 12:59 PM
I have yet to find any coherent reason why such a peace loving and equality based politician is all bad as the news and papers imply.


The problem is that he has never been 'peace loving.'

In fact, he frequently encourages violence against sides that he doesn't support.

There are plenty of people who support the use of violence for achievement of their political views.


However, one of the reasons that Galloway is so widely despised by a large number of people is because of his frequent dishonesty, especially when he is promoting violence.

Many people see those kinds of actions from Galloway as destructive, disingenuous, and unhelpful for solving or calming International issues.

Zeuzzz
20th November 2012, 04:27 PM
He does not support violence. Is your issue that he understands peoples right to defend their sovereignty if their country is invaded and they do not like the occupiers?

There's a titanic difference between people who feel their existence and culture is under threat defending themselves and on the other hand advocating full out needless violence.

bit_pattern
20th November 2012, 04:51 PM
Because this:

Mlt4q3DPpeQ

[insert laughing dog gif]

HAHAHA! Only the most puerile and hateful of islamophobes could point to that video as being a "problem" :rolleyes:

bit_pattern
20th November 2012, 04:53 PM
The problem is that he has never been 'peace loving.'

In fact, he frequently encourages violence against sides that he doesn't support.

Examples please.

MarkCorrigan
20th November 2012, 05:48 PM
Examples please.

Well that took about 30 seconds.

xX8L5X4M__E

Zeuzzz
20th November 2012, 06:00 PM
Not advocating violence. Notice the word 'resistance' instead of 'kill'. And notice out he's just pointing out facts that seem a likely certainty due to history, even if some cultures find the reality of the situation hard to contemplate.

He's not inspiring people to do it, he's warning people of what will inevitably happen. He has a track record of being annoyingly right about international events in the middle East, 100% right about Iraq, and 95% right about Afghanistan, and 95% right about most middle eastern countries. 10 positive ratings on such a new video in just 200 views is a very good ratio.

Just getting passionate and angry about a real thing happening today that too few are still passionate and angry about is not a bad thing. Some people have either just chosen to ignore what he speaks about or have just forgotten. Yet it is still happening.

bit_pattern
20th November 2012, 07:07 PM
Well that took about 30 seconds.

xX8L5X4M__E

17 seconds of heavily edited video footage devoid of anyvcontext?

You're giving to have to do a lot better than that I'm afraid.

Why is it that critical think skills go to water when people discuss Israel on JREF?

Virus
20th November 2012, 10:52 PM
Just posted a vid of him slobbering a genocidal mass murderer with praise right to his face. Don't think I can be bothered arguing with sycophants who fail to see a problem with that.

So I'll just post this (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1102).

Zeuzzz
21st November 2012, 02:39 PM
Random website with completely false claims. Nice source.

Galloway pwns a n00b a month ago.

epPD4GYZa_8

I like it when he gets rightfully angry, it's funny.

EDIT: His full speech at the oxford university union is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i8p49ODBu4&feature=relmfu). His comments defending his position on the Julian Assange case is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_821502&feature=iv&index=3&list=SPOAFgXcJkZ2wH3d8BMsubZVTo2hfueP9-&src_vid=epPD4GYZa_8&v=jaeW_A1K7SY). The questions from the tabloid sycophantic audience are sometimes cringe worthy.

Zeuzzz
21st November 2012, 02:51 PM
He even told the truth about Julian Assange and wikileaks in a news article, and was fired from the paper when he was abroad due to politicians getting annoyed at what he said about the rape charges and the political history of the women that accused him. Without watching the informative documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7RfLPl1Xd0&feature=related) about the situation it's very easy to get a completely warped perspective about him.

Zeuzzz
22nd November 2012, 12:13 AM
Galloway getting the support of the entire student audience last year and beating his companies arguments into the ground accompanied by echoes of rounds of applause from the audience. Even the host.

og47CDEUiso

:D

Virus
22nd November 2012, 12:35 AM
If only his old pal Saddam could see him.

And his old pal Uday Hussein.

But they can't.

Because they're dead.

Zeuzzz
22nd November 2012, 12:51 AM
And good riddance to them.

Galloway hated them. And met Sadam once and Uday once to discuss peaceful ways out of needless conflict. Let me reiterate that; this is far less times than most totally respectable UK and US officials, political or military, the last few decades. Tony Benn interviewed both too.

The difference is the officials went there to sell him guns. They both went there (they are not alone, many more too I wont go into) as politicians to get a view of what is going on in the middle east from the eyes of one of the countries dictators and report back what was said. The full interviews are available online.

Croydon Bob
22nd November 2012, 04:56 AM
The people posting that they hate Galloway, etc, are no different to birthers and the other loonies who hate Obama because he's a Commie Muslim Kenyan. Never mind actual facts, Fox News made up some lies about him and that is good enough for them.

Galloway has said and done lots of things that I don't agree with, but he's not as bad as Blair for sucking up to nasty foreigners. He didn't sell anyone weapons, or invade on flimsy pretexts.

WildCat
22nd November 2012, 05:48 AM
The people posting that they hate Galloway, etc, are no different to birthers and the other loonies who hate Obama because he's a Commie Muslim Kenyan. Never mind actual facts, Fox News made up some lies about him and that is good enough for them.

Galloway has said and done lots of things that I don't agree with, but he's not as bad as Blair for sucking up to nasty foreigners. He didn't sell anyone weapons, or invade on flimsy pretexts.
He gave sacks of money to Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group.

He works for and reguilarly apologizes for the regime in Iran. He's BFFs with Assad.

Croydon Bob
22nd November 2012, 06:16 AM
He gave sacks of money to Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group.

Are you referring to the £20,000 (or £25,000 plus three cars, depending on source) that he gave to the Ministry of Health in Gaza? Or do you mean the Viva Palistina money that was intended as humanitarian aid for the relief of residents? The claim that some of this money ended up with Hamas came from Fatah, a Palestinian terrorist organisation. Even if true - does this failure to get money to the people that needed it compare to the support for numerous terrorists and fascist regimes around the world by US Presidents? Does this compare to Thatcher's funding of the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s?


I'm not defending his actions in supplying money to Palestinians, I don't know enough about it. As usual neither do you but you've made up your own story anyway and will stick with it regardless of reality.

Croydon Bob
22nd November 2012, 06:35 AM
He works for and reguilarly apologizes for the regime in Iran.

This is also not correct.

He has done work for "Press TV", but comparing that to working for the regime in Iran is almost like accusing someone who works on Sesame Street of working for the US regime. A state-owned TV station is not the same as the Government, as anyone who has watched BBC news will understand (not that I would trust an Iranian-owned station, or any channel that employs Galloway). He doesn't "reguilarly" apologise for the Iranian regime, you are mistaken again, he did spout a load of offensive nonsense about gay rights in Iran on one occasion.

Thank you for providing further evidence that the Galloway haters are just spewing lies and fiction to try to support their non-skeptical beliefs.

MarkCorrigan
22nd November 2012, 06:37 AM
How about hating him for supporting Saddam Hussein, the USSR (I'm a socialist and I think that's indefensible) and abandoning his own constituents to bugger off and act like a complete tit with Rula Lenska on national television?

How about hating the man for committing to support an area of London, and trading off his support of Islamic groups in order to get the largely Islamic community to back him and vote him in, then turning his backs on them like the corpulent jackass he is?

What if I hate him for his ideas about sexual etiquette, when he claimed that even if the accusations against Assange were correct that having sex with a woman who is asleep is not rape? What about if it was for his pro-Iranian stance, denying that gay people are executed claiming only rapists are? How about denying that the Tiananmen Square massacre happened, and when he was called on it tried to weasel out of it by saying all he said was that there was no massacre IN the square?

As for your assertion he gave the cars and money to the Ministry of Health well...no.

"We are giving you now 100 vehicles and all of their contents, and we make no apology for what I am about to say. We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine," adding he would personally donate three cars and 25,000 pounds to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya.

Source. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVfkS_BAzf-CcTYE6baYi9PN5jwA)

Croydon Bob
22nd November 2012, 06:47 AM
He's BFFs with Assad.

And this is also not true.

He has been quoted this year as supporting the Arab Spring and saying "Assad must go". So he's guilty of changing his mind and supporting a dictator until it seems like the untenable thing to do, just like most other politicians. Doesn't make Galloway right, but it makes you guilty of evidence-free nonsense.

Nessie
22nd November 2012, 06:50 AM
He was my MP for a while and I wrote to him about a problem to do with housing. He did not bother to reply. I wonder if he would have if I had signed off with an Asian sounding name instead of my own Scottish one.

I saw him out campaigning a couple of times and did not like the way he surrounded himself with what could be best described as thugs who were chanting as a way to get their message over. He was at the middle smiling and waving, but totally unapproachable.

WildCat
22nd November 2012, 07:05 AM
Are you referring to the £20,000 (or £25,000 plus three cars, depending on source) that he gave to the Ministry of Health in Gaza? Or do you mean the Viva Palistina money that was intended as humanitarian aid for the relief of residents? The claim that some of this money ended up with Hamas came from Fatah, a Palestinian terrorist organisation. Even if true - does this failure to get money to the people that needed it compare to the support for numerous terrorists and fascist regimes around the world by US Presidents? Does this compare to Thatcher's funding of the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s?


I'm not defending his actions in supplying money to Palestinians, I don't know enough about it. As usual neither do you but you've made up your own story anyway and will stick with it regardless of reality.
He gave the money to Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization. Why is that so hard to admit?

This is also not correct.

He has done work for "Press TV", but comparing that to working for the regime in Iran is almost like accusing someone who works on Sesame Street of working for the US regime. A state-owned TV station is not the same as the Government, as anyone who has watched BBC news will understand (not that I would trust an Iranian-owned station, or any channel that employs Galloway). He doesn't "reguilarly" apologise for the Iranian regime, you are mistaken again, he did spout a load of offensive nonsense about gay rights in Iran on one occasion.

Thank you for providing further evidence that the Galloway haters are just spewing lies and fiction to try to support their non-skeptical beliefs.
PressTV is the mouthpiece of the Iranian regime, Sesame Street is not the mouthpiece of the US government.

Croydon Bob
22nd November 2012, 07:07 AM
How about hating him for supporting Saddam Hussein,

Exaggerated, misrepresented. And do you hate every UK PM and US President throughout the decades that Hussein was in power, funded and tooled up by the US, UK, France, etc?

the USSR (I'm a socialist and I think that's indefensible)

Evidence? He's frequently on record as denouncing Communists for supporting the USSR. Here, for instance: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17783704 where he accuses Aaronovitch of supporting the USSR. Although, of course, he also claimed to hate Trots right up to the point where he formed a temporary alliance with the SWP to support Respect.

and abandoning his own constituents to bugger off and act like a complete tit with Rula Lenska on national television?

You win that one.

How about hating the man for committing to support an area of London, and trading off his support of Islamic groups in order to get the largely Islamic community to back him and vote him in, then turning his backs on them like the corpulent jackass he is?

Yes, but again, no worse than most politicians.

What if I hate him for his ideas about sexual etiquette, when he claimed that even if the accusations against Assange were correct that having sex with a woman who is asleep is not rape?

Yup, that's a good example of something he actually did or said that was bang out of order. But not something that the right wingers care about. They hate him for fictitious stuff about supporting terrorists, they couldn't care less about his dodgy record on women's rights.

[QUOTE=MarkCorrigan;8788856]What about if it was for his pro-Iranian stance, denying that gay people are executed claiming only rapists are?

I already mentioned that. Peter Tatchell quite correctly gave him a good verbal kicking for it.

How about denying that the Tiananmen Square massacre happened, and when he was called on it tried to weasel out of it by saying all he said was that there was no massacre IN the square?

Arguable.

As for your assertion he gave the cars and money to the Ministry of Health well...no.

Source. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVfkS_BAzf-CcTYE6baYi9PN5jwA)

You've found one source. Use of a popular internet search engine and a browse around non-right-wing-loony sites doesn't particularly support it.

Nessie
22nd November 2012, 07:13 AM
I find that when he is correct he is spot on about the matter, but when he gets things wrong he gets them very, very wrong. If he could have toned himself down he could have been a very good politician, peace campaigner, but his manner would often backfire.

MarkCorrigan
22nd November 2012, 07:21 AM
You think he didn't support the Soviet Union?

He says his political position is no different now than it was then; that while there are so many politicians marching across the ideological spectrum without explanation, he has stayed put. What is that position? "I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If

Link. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVfkS_BAzf-CcTYE6baYi9PN5jwA)

Zeuzzz
22nd November 2012, 07:51 AM
Can you not follow the trend about claims in the media against Galloway that this entire thread has borne out to it's logical conclusion? :D

Or will I have to link (again) to him addressing these false claims you keep repeating?

Everything is portrayed as so Machiavellian, black and white. Good or terrorist. Respectable or evil.

Corrigan your avatar makes your stance even more funny, I can imagine mark going on a rant about him to Jeremy! His opinions are a lot more complicated than your selective quote.

bit_pattern
23rd November 2012, 12:37 AM
You think he didn't support the Soviet Union?



Link. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVfkS_BAzf-CcTYE6baYi9PN5jwA)

That link says nothing about the USSR

Virus
23rd November 2012, 02:34 AM
That link says nothing about the USSR

"I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life."

- George Bum-face Galloway.

Craig B
23rd November 2012, 05:39 AM
"I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life."

- George Bum-face Galloway. I have no doubt you're right, but do you have a source?

funk de fino
23rd November 2012, 11:55 AM
The people posting that they hate Galloway, etc, are no different to birthers and the other loonies who hate Obama because he's a Commie Muslim Kenyan. Never mind actual facts, Fox News made up some lies about him and that is good enough for them.

Galloway has said and done lots of things that I don't agree with, but he's not as bad as Blair for sucking up to nasty foreigners. He didn't sell anyone weapons, or invade on flimsy pretexts.

Rubbish. I am from the same town as him and have watched his nonsense for many years. He is a disgrace to his country.

He is a two faced liar and a bully. He is a flip flopper on pretty much everything. Pretty much a total scumbag. To try and paint people who hate him as birthers is pathetic.

Virus
23rd November 2012, 02:58 PM
I have no doubt you're right, but do you have a source?

It's from a fawning Guardian interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/16/iraq.interviews).

Supporting the Soviet Union is no better than supporting the NSDAP.

Craig B
24th November 2012, 01:24 AM
It's from a fawning Guardian interview (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/16/iraq.interviews).

Supporting the Soviet Union is no better than supporting the NSDAP. Thanks for the link. The Soviet Union was a deplorable regime, and I welcomed its dissolution. But in its last decades at least it was nothing like as bad as Nazi Germany. It proved to be repressive, economically and technically incompetent, and incapable of reform, however, and Galloway's support for it is both absurd and discreditable.

His standpoint seems to be based on the idea that the world is a better place when it is not dominated by a single political entity. That may well be true in principle, but if one of several powerful polities is of an unacceptable character, then it is entirely unreasonable to support it merely to sustain plurality.

The Guardian is capable, by the way, of publishing articles critical of Galloway. Here is a case in point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/22/labour-police-leaflet-racists-claim The exploitation of sectarian religious particularism to obtain votes in areas with large Muslim populations is my current major political objection to Gorgeous George. I would be interested to hear from his long-suffering supporters on this point.

StankApe
24th November 2012, 01:52 AM
my view on George Galloway? If someone set him on fire I'd laugh and watch...

I would set fire to the person next to him just so had to watch me put them out.

Craig B
24th November 2012, 03:23 AM
I would set fire to the person next to him just so had to watch me put them out. Not quite sure I follow that.

Toontown
24th November 2012, 05:14 AM
Galloway's political success has got me thinking...

If a loudmouth like that can achieve financial and political success by supporting scum like Iraq's Ba'ath family business and the Soviet Union, then the game is truly wide open. Loosey goosie indeed.

Let me in the game, boys. All I need is a seat, a buck, and a truck.

Darat
24th November 2012, 05:22 AM
Galloway's political success has got me thinking...

If a loudmouth like that can achieve financial and political success by supporting scum like Iraq's Ba'ath family business and the Soviet Union, then the game is truly wide open. Loosey goosie indeed.

Let me in the game, boys. All I need is a seat, a buck, and a truck.

I've highlighted a problem for your argument, you'd need to show that is the reason he has been as "successful" as he is. Personally I don't doubt that it's helped but my opinion is that he has had his success by playing the maverick, for being for the "little people". In other words like many a politician his success can be explained by him always playing the populist card with no regard to consistency, ethics, morals, shame or anything else that makes most of us incapable of behaving the way he does.

Toontown
24th November 2012, 10:00 AM
I've highlighted a problem for your argument, you'd need to show that is the reason he has been as "successful" as he is. Personally I don't doubt that it's helped but my opinion is that he has had his success by playing the maverick, for being for the "little people". In other words like many a politician his success can be explained by him always playing the populist card with no regard to consistency, ethics, morals, shame or anything else that makes most of us incapable of behaving the way he does.

Of course. Passing himself off as a maverick working-class hero of the "little people" was crucial to Galloway's 10-step program:

1. Establish "maverick" image
2. Suck up to the "little people"
3. Get elected to some arguably credible political position
4. Suck up to Saddam
5. Profit
6. Temporarily lose credibility
7. Suck up to the "little people" again
8. Get elected again
9. Bemoan the passing of the Soviet Union
10. Profit

Nessie
24th November 2012, 10:43 AM
He is also good at finding ethnically diverse areas and becoming their MP because he gets the support of left wingers and ethnic minorities. Glasgow Kelvin is one of the few ethnically diverse places in Scotland where there is a large ethnic population.

Garrison
24th November 2012, 10:55 AM
He does not support violence. Is your issue that he understands peoples right to defend their sovereignty if their country is invaded and they do not like the occupiers?

There's a titanic difference between people who feel their existence and culture is under threat defending themselves and on the other hand advocating full out needless violence.

He's a self publicizing egotist who'll back any third world despot willing to fork out a few dollars an put him up in a nice hotel, he could care less about the people of the Arab world, or the poor unfortunates who put him back in parliament. He is one of the worst examples of a self serving politician you are going to find at Westminster and that's quite an achievement in itself given he has some pretty stiff competition.

StankApe
24th November 2012, 10:56 AM
Not quite sure I follow that.

well he's already on fire, so setting fire to the person next to him then extinguishing him would fill Galloway with a false sense of glee that he too may be put out.But when you refused, the added sadness would intensify the pain.

It was just meant to be mean yet silly.....

Undesired Walrus
25th November 2012, 01:58 AM
He is also good at finding ethnically diverse areas and becoming their MP because he gets the support of left wingers and ethnic minorities. Glasgow Kelvin is one of the few ethnically diverse places in Scotland where there is a large ethnic population.

And then gets run out of town five years later after his constituents understand that he uses their votes to further his profile.

Craig B
25th November 2012, 03:00 AM
And then gets run out of town five years later after his constituents understand that he uses their votes to further his profile. Well, he certainly doesn't seem to use them as an opportunity to participate in the business of Parliament, as this from his wiki bio shows:Following the 2005 election, his participation rate remained low, and at the end of the year he had participated in only 15% of Divisions in the House of Commons since the general election, placing him 634th of 645 MPs. Of the eleven MPs below him in the rankings, one was the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, five were Sinn Féin members who have an abstentionist policy toward taking their seats, three were the speaker and deputy speakers and therefore ineligible to vote, and two had died since the election. Galloway claims a record of unusual activity at a "grass roots" level. His own estimate is that he made 1,100 public speeches between September 2001 and May 2005. If his vocation is to be a speaker at public meetings, why does he trouble to seek election to the House of Commons?

Zeuzzz
25th November 2012, 11:25 AM
And then gets run out of town five years later after his constituents understand that he uses their votes to further his profile.


As does any politician. It's part of their job to stay popular with the people by expanding their public profile and retaining their seat.

Zeuzzz
25th November 2012, 11:29 AM
with no regard to consistency, ethics, morals, shame or anything else that makes most of us incapable of behaving the way he does.



Do you have evidence of this inconsistency or unethical behaviour ? Or is this just a generalisation ?

Nessie
25th November 2012, 12:54 PM
As does any politician. It's part of their job to stay popular with the people by expanding their public profile and retaining their seat.

But he would disappear off elsewhere on speaking tours, to appear on TV celebrity shows and as shown was not great at turning up at parliament and doing the job he was elected for. In Glasgow Kelvin he tried to get round that by employing various assistants and they would do his constituency work instead. I know as I knew one of them.

wishface
26th November 2012, 12:31 AM
Galloway's political success has got me thinking...

If a loudmouth like that can achieve financial and political success by supporting scum like Iraq's Ba'ath family business and the Soviet Union, then the game is truly wide open. Loosey goosie indeed.

Let me in the game, boys. All I need is a seat, a buck, and a truck.

he has never supported the ba'ath party.

he may be vain, he may even be arrogant, he may even like dressing up in leotards and pretending to be a cat, but he's rarely wrong IMO. Even his points regarding Assange, whom he admits he has never met, were misrepresented, to my mind. I don't think he at all condoned rape.

wishface
26th November 2012, 12:35 AM
He's a self publicizing egotist who'll back any third world despot willing to fork out a few dollars an put him up in a nice hotel, he could care less about the people of the Arab world, or the poor unfortunates who put him back in parliament. He is one of the worst examples of a self serving politician you are going to find at Westminster and that's quite an achievement in itself given he has some pretty stiff competition.

what despots did he back and how did he back them?

Croydon Bob
26th November 2012, 04:36 AM
You think he didn't support the Soviet Union?


I posted a link where he made clear that he did not. In your link he is a little more fuzzy. But it does seem to be another case of his wobbly politics.

Croydon Bob
26th November 2012, 04:48 AM
He is a two faced liar and a bully. He is a flip flopper on pretty much everything. Pretty much a total scumbag. To try and paint people who hate him as birthers is pathetic.

And yet, following your post is almost a page of lies and fantasy given as reasons to hate him. Evidence-free spewing of fiction and hatred is just what the birthers and troofers do. Pathetic is indeed an appropriate word but you have applied it in the wrong direction.

As I have said before, he has done enough to disgust me without the need to repeat lies about his relationship with Iraq, bribes, etc. Lies that are now being repeated here despite them having already been debunked earlier in the same thread.

Nessie
26th November 2012, 06:29 AM
The way he phrased his greeting of Sadam, the way he phrased his comments about the Soviet Union and what Assange is supposed to have done is designed to attract publicity. He appears to specialise in denials.

Zeuzzz
26th November 2012, 09:49 AM
So your main problem is his phrasing?

Zeuzzz
26th November 2012, 09:53 AM
Even his points regarding Assange, whom he admits he has never met, were misrepresented, to my mind. I don't think he at all condoned rape.


I agree, his points about Assange and rape were totally legitimate.

The fact the press had a field day and a witch hunt about the rape issue whilst totally ignoring the reason why he had brought up the rape charges at all reeked of hypocrisy.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. Or rather, in Galloways case, a sackable act.

Nessie
26th November 2012, 10:21 AM
So your main problem is his phrasing?

No my main problem is his desire to attract publicity rather than represent his constituents when he is an MP. If he wants to be a peace campaigner or charity fundraiser, so be it. But don't do that as a full or even part time job when you are an MP.

The phrasing issue is more to do with wanting to be taken seriously. Many see him as a self publicising buffoon because of the way he says things. I think that does him a disservice since when he speaks normally, as he would do when he was writing articles for the free newspaper delivered to my door when I lived in Glasgow Kelvin, he made a lot of sense.

funk de fino
26th November 2012, 01:01 PM
And yet, following your post is almost a page of lies and fantasy given as reasons to hate him. Evidence-free spewing of fiction and hatred is just what the birthers and troofers do. Pathetic is indeed an appropriate word but you have applied it in the wrong direction.

This just shows you failed to watch celebrity Big brother where he was found out. His treatment of Barrymore and some of the younger ones was terrible and disgusting.

You defend him at all costs while castigating others with insults shows who truly has no idea. I have watched his career and his MO longer and more closely than you it seems.

He is a pathetic turd of man

As I have said before, he has done enough to disgust me without the need to repeat lies about his relationship with Iraq, bribes, etc. Lies that are now being repeated here despite them having already been debunked earlier in the same thread.

Show me what lies I have told? Watch that reflex, you might choke.

fuelair
26th November 2012, 01:09 PM
Israel does NOT itentionally target civilians.

Hitler was elected in 1933. Does that mean that he had to defend Germany from that Sole Polish Soldier.

"Israeli Aggression" - Explain all the missiles fired by Hamas.

Hamas are legally proscribed as terrorists by the EU and the US.

and, just a reminder, are clear war criminals of the basis of the Geneva Conventions and several other long accepted rules of war/warfare*.

*No clear uniform.

Fire from civilian area/hide with civilians.

Endanger civilians by same.

HoverBoarder
26th November 2012, 01:45 PM
No my main problem is his desire to attract publicity rather than represent his constituents when he is an MP. If he wants to be a peace campaigner or charity fundraiser, so be it. But don't do that as a full or even part time job when you are an MP.

The phrasing issue is more to do with wanting to be taken seriously. Many see him as a self publicising buffoon because of the way he says things. I think that does him a disservice since when he speaks normally, as he would do when he was writing articles for the free newspaper delivered to my door when I lived in Glasgow Kelvin, he made a lot of sense.

And even when he is not doing his job as MP, he is not a "peace campaigner or charity fundraiser" either.

He fully supports war, just for the sides that he supports in the wars.

Zeuzzz
26th November 2012, 02:47 PM
Amazing how you can say one of the most anti war British politicians supports war.

Evidence?

Giz
26th November 2012, 03:40 PM
Amazing how you can say one of the most anti war British politicians supports war.

Evidence?

Well, there's the photo of him handing wads of cash to the leader of the genocidal Hamas cult... not enough? There's also his speeches lauding the Iraq insurgency (bravely struggling to replace the fledgling Iraqi democracy with a religious totalitarian theocracy).

Zeuzzz
26th November 2012, 03:50 PM
Well, there's the photo of him handing wads of cash to the leader of the genocidal Hamas cult... not enough? There's also his speeches lauding the Iraq insurgency (bravely struggling to replace the fledgling Iraqi democracy with a religious totalitarian theocracy).


Charity collected from the British people when the war was going on to help them rebuild and give food to.

Charity money in times of war tends to go to the democratically elected Government so they can help their people. Which is what happened here.

theprestige
26th November 2012, 04:45 PM
Charity collected from the British people when the war was going on to help them rebuild and give food to.

Charity money in times of war tends to go to the democratically elected Government so they can help their people. Which is what happened here.

Hamas does not work that way!

/Morbo

MarkCorrigan
26th November 2012, 06:56 PM
I agree, his points about Assange and rape were totally legitimate.
.

So if a woman you have slept with falls asleep, it's perfectly ok to start screwing her again while she's asleep?

Wow. Just...jesus.

Zeuzzz
26th November 2012, 08:51 PM
So if a woman you have slept with falls asleep, it's perfectly ok to start screwing her again while she's asleep?


No, it's not perfectly ok. Which is the point George agreed with anyway, he was pointing out the devaluing of a words meaning by calling Assange a rapist. You know why?

The whole point George even brought it up was to point out that out of all the women Assange had slept with the two girls that have accused him were the only two with political ties so are unlikely to be telling the truth anyway, plus the judge and police said there is no evidence for a prosecution.

Zeuzzz
26th November 2012, 08:55 PM
Hamas does not work that way!

How do they work then?

Croydon Bob
27th November 2012, 07:10 AM
Show me what lies I have told?
You defend him at all costs

:D

You post nothing but clueless nonsense. Do you really know anything about Galloway? Have you read any of the posts in this thread? What on earth is the point of your wibbling? You attack your own dishonest version of what I wrote just as you attack a fictitious version of Galloway.

Craig B
27th November 2012, 08:52 AM
:D

You post nothing but clueless nonsense. Do you really know anything about Galloway? Have you read any of the posts in this thread? What on earth is the point of your wibbling? You attack your own dishonest version of what I wrote just as you attack a fictitious version of Galloway. Authentic versions of Galloway may legitimately be attacked too.

HoverBoarder
27th November 2012, 12:50 PM
The problem is that he has never been 'peace loving.'

In fact, he frequently encourages violence against sides that he doesn't support.

There are plenty of people who support the use of violence for achievement of their political views.


However, one of the reasons that Galloway is so widely despised by a large number of people is because of his frequent dishonesty, especially when he is promoting violence.

Many people see those kinds of actions from Galloway as destructive, disingenuous, and unhelpful for solving or calming International issues.
He does not support violence. Is your issue that he understands peoples right to defend their sovereignty if their country is invaded and they do not like the occupiers?

There's a titanic difference between people who feel their existence and culture is under threat defending themselves and on the other hand advocating full out needless violence.

Galloway absolutely supports violence, just for the sides the he supports. The problem with that is not so much that he supports violence, but that he is so dishonest about it.

In the video below, he mocks, insults, and sexually denigrates a caller into his Iranian TV show who despite being heavily "pro-Palestinian" supports nonviolence, and people who call for the killing of Jews.
rtiSpQH7WE8?start=264

At 5:38 in the video the caller says that "I believe in the way of Martin Luther King."

Galloway cuts her off and says "well that really hasn't been working out very well Hawa, that hasn't really been working out, the way of Martin Luther King."

Which absolutely is Galloway supporting violence and mocking those who would go the peaceful route.

Galloway continues that "that hasn't really been working out, the Palestinians gave up a long time ago the attempt to recover their country by arms a long time ago."

Which is untrue as the latest conflict clearly demonstrated, and is another case of Galloway being dishonest.



The worst behavior of Galloway starts at 6:30.

The caller notes that she is "Pro-Palestine, but at the same time I don't like when Muslims are going to say they are going to do Jihad, and kill people from the Jewish background."

Galloway cuts her off again by yelling that "who is saying that Hawa, what Palestinian has said, what Palestinian has ever said, GET OFF YOUR KNEES HAWA, GET OFF YOUR KNEES, the Palestinians are being slaughtered and all you can do is role out apology after apology..." And after Galloway is done with his insults, dishonesty, and sexual denigration, he cuts off Hawa's call before she is given a chance to respond.


On top of the whole sexual denigration part, it is that exact type of dishonesty from Galloway that causes these reoccurring conflicts to occur in the first place. When the supporters of Hamas give them a free pass to attack Israeli civilians and cities, and only focus on the 'evil' of the response, they are encouraging the continual conflict from happening again and again, while preventing the real efforts towards peace.

As for the sexual denigration part, Galloway would not have made that insult to a man, and it is insulting and inexcusable that he would talk to that woman that way.

I would never allow someone to talk to my mom or sister on the street that way, and most people would also find that type of behavior deplorable. Just because Galloway is an absent MP, and a celebrity on an Iranian TV show does not give him the excuse to act the way that he does.

Galloway's supporters need to wake up and get honest about what the man has been saying. He is not a supporter of peace, and he is habitually dishonest. There are genuine routes towards peace in the Middle East, and it is the opposite of the route that Galloway promotes.

funk de fino
27th November 2012, 02:14 PM
:D

You post nothing but clueless nonsense. Do you really know anything about Galloway? Have you read any of the posts in this thread? What on earth is the point of your wibbling? You attack your own dishonest version of what I wrote just as you attack a fictitious version of Galloway.

I know more about him that you it seems? You seem tetchy? Is he a hero?

You also lied about my lies. Classy.

Zeuzzz
28th November 2012, 01:28 AM
Galloway absolutely supports violence, just for the sides the he supports. The problem with that is not so much that he supports violence, but that he is so dishonest about it.

In the video below, he mocks, insults, and sexually denigrates a caller into his Iranian TV show who despite being heavily "pro-Palestinian" supports nonviolence, and people who call for the killing of Jews.
rtiSpQH7WE8?start=264

At 5:38 in the video the caller says that "I believe in the way of Martin Luther King."

Galloway cuts her off and says "well that really hasn't been working out very well Hawa, that hasn't really been working out, the way of Martin Luther King."

Which absolutely is Galloway supporting violence and mocking those who would go the peaceful route.

Galloway continues that "that hasn't really been working out, the Palestinians gave up a long time ago the attempt to recover their country by arms a long time ago."

Which is untrue as the latest conflict clearly demonstrated, and is another case of Galloway being dishonest.



The worst behavior of Galloway starts at 6:30.

The caller notes that she is "Pro-Palestine, but at the same time I don't like when Muslims are going to say they are going to do Jihad, and kill people from the Jewish background."

Galloway cuts her off again by yelling that "who is saying that Hawa, what Palestinian has said, what Palestinian has ever said, GET OFF YOUR KNEES HAWA, GET OFF YOUR KNEES, the Palestinians are being slaughtered and all you can do is role out apology after apology..." And after Galloway is done with his insults, dishonesty, and sexual denigration, he cuts off Hawa's call before she is given a chance to respond.


On top of the whole sexual denigration part, it is that exact type of dishonesty from Galloway that causes these reoccurring conflicts to occur in the first place. When the supporters of Hamas give them a free pass to attack Israeli civilians and cities, and only focus on the 'evil' of the response, they are encouraging the continual conflict from happening again and again, while preventing the real efforts towards peace.

As for the sexual denigration part, Galloway would not have made that insult to a man, and it is insulting and inexcusable that he would talk to that woman that way.

I would never allow someone to talk to my mom or sister on the street that way, and most people would also find that type of behavior deplorable. Just because Galloway is an absent MP, and a celebrity on an Iranian TV show does not give him the excuse to act the way that he does.

Galloway's supporters need to wake up and get honest about what the man has been saying. He is not a supporter of peace, and he is habitually dishonest. There are genuine routes towards peace in the Middle East, and it is the opposite of the route that Galloway promotes.


Heh, that was amusing. He read that woman completely wrong. Methinks that he was gearing himself up for another episode full of Zionist propaganda phone ins, who tend to start out sympathetic to the Palestniians yet when concluding they suddenly come up with the most extreme fear mongering paranoia. At which point I just smile as George impatiently educates them.

You have now said twice "Galloway absolutely supports violence, just for the sides the he supports". I have never seen Galloway support a particular side of any war. He is always the one annoyed about the war happening despite all his anti-war campaigns and frequently rallies with troops parents to get them back safely asap.

He does make a point of stating the bleeding obvious sometimes, warning people that when invading a country that they will likely find continual resistance, it is not in-sighting resistance or violence. He tries to explain why such attacks happen, usually historically or using an Islamic mindset. The victims of this invasion will tend to defend what they see as their land from foreign occupiers. If you can find any evidence of him supporting violence please post it.

"He is not a supporter of peace, and he is habitually dishonest"

I've yet to see any evidence of this either, past your own subjective impressions of his character.

Croydon Bob
28th November 2012, 05:57 AM
I know more about him that you it seems? You seem tetchy? Is he a hero?

You also lied about my lies. Classy.

Going back over the last two pages of this thread I find:

Galloway has said and done lots of things that I don't agree with,
I'm not defending his actions in supplying money to Palestinians,
So he's guilty of changing his mind and supporting a dictator until it seems like the untenable thing to do,
Yup, that's a good example of something he actually did or said that was bang out of order.
But it does seem to be another case of his wobbly politics.
As I have said before, he has done enough to disgust me without the need to repeat lies

So... do you want to apologise for lying and for falsely accusing me of lying? Or are you going to keep digging?

Giz
28th November 2012, 06:11 AM
I've yet to see any evidence of this either, past your own subjective impressions of his character.

From the BBC:

In a speech in the Middle East, Mr Galloway said: "These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable.

"We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4744685.stm
------------

I think that calling them martyrs and saying that they are writing names in the stars is glorifying/supporting the murderous, medieval, oppressive, religious-fascist insurgents who are out to destroy a fledgling democracy and install a terrible theocratic dictatorship.

"145 military operations a day" - what a disgusting way to describe deliberately bombing marketplaces and places of worship with the intent of killing civilians.

Zeuzzz
28th November 2012, 07:04 AM
From the BBC:

In a speech in the Middle East, Mr Galloway said: "These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable.

"We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4744685.stm


Nice quote. Pretty much spot on the money isn't it? Very sad situation, too much needless violence.

I think that calling them martyrs and saying that they are writing names in the stars is glorifying/supporting the murderous, medieval, oppressive, religious-fascist insurgents who are out to destroy a fledgling democracy and install a terrible theocratic dictatorship.


Glorifying? Supporting? ... Where?

There's no need to lie about it, even if the news does. The people that blow themselves up think they are martyrs, giving their lives for what they see as the greater good of their neighbors. As delusional as they may be this is what they think.

145 military operations a day" - what a disgusting way to describe deliberately bombing marketplaces and places of worship with the intent of killing civilians.


So we call our actions military operations, yet any resistance we find from the indigenous people is what? Just evil terrorism with no other real motives? War on terror or war of terror? I can get some statistics out if you want.

It is not the hardware of military weapons that frightens me. A gun can't go off. It is the hatred that makes people want to use them. That is the fuel of war. To deny that would be delusional. Addressing the reasons for this anger and fundamentalism is of utmost importance, and Galloway is rather good at getting those mirror neurons firing in the public.

Zeuzzz
28th November 2012, 08:57 AM
Anyone else?

Zeuzzz
28th November 2012, 09:12 AM
Heh, another classic Galloway cracker defending his comments on 7/7 following the lambasting of him in the media, who totally misrepresented his views and what he said. No wonder the media leaves him alone now! Yet to see him intellectually loose a debate.

lrgm-kekLt0

funk de fino
28th November 2012, 09:48 AM
Going back over the last two pages of this thread I find:

So... do you want to apologise for lying and for falsely accusing me of lying? Or are you going to keep digging?

Your timeline is all screwed up but I suspect you knew that.

You mentioned lies before I posted that. The fact mine was reply to that should have given you a clue.

The lies you listed were nothing I posted ealier, yet you still went off on your litle rant about birthers. Then kept ranting.

ETA - what ficticious version of him do I attack? I will accept my posts that desribe that George. Not what other people posted. OK?

Zeuzzz
28th November 2012, 10:06 AM
Heh, another classic Galloway cracker defending his comments on 7/7 following the lambasting of him in the media, who totally misrepresented his views and what he said. No wonder the media leaves him alone now! Yet to see him intellectually loose a debate.

lrgm-kekLt0


Transcript via Ztext:

BBC: Was it wise to say, as you said "it's not the muslims that are the terrorists, the biggest terrorists are Bush and Blair.

Galloway: Well that's my view. I was elected on that view. I have a mandate for that view. You may not like that view, but it is my view.

BBC: So Tony Blair has brought destruction to London?

Galloway: I am telling you the truth as I see it. It is my duty to do so, and I did it in the house of commons on the day of the bombing. The entire media and leading political class fell on top of my head. I was insulkted on news-night by Gavin Estler who said I was crass. The sky fell in on me, and I was even insulted on the today program.

BBC: But you said the fault lies with the people that carried out the attacks. So you are condemning the attacks that were carried out in London?

Galloway: Well. I'm almost insulted by that question. I'm bound to say how dare you ask me that question.

BBC: Well, the reason that I ask it is because the language you employed in numerous television channels could be seen to some as a justification for what they plan to do?

Galloway: Madam. If I say that a car has four wheels. And ford motor company says it has four wheels; that doesn't make me a part of the ford motor company.

BBC: When you said in your broadcast that the insurgents are martyrs what did you mean?

Galloway: Well a martyr, whether in an insergency or the Iraqi resistance, is dead. Whereas the Iraqi resistance are very much alive.

BBC: Ummm. You have said that two of your beautiful daughters are now in the hands of foreigners in Baghdad and Jerusalem, and the foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. Some arab countries are collaborating with the rape of those two beautiful arab daughters. Why did you choose to use such inflammatory language? Which according to your critics, put the lives of British soldiers at risk.

Galloway: Well I don't think there are any soldiers occupying Jerusalem, or Baghdad for that matter. I believe that Baghdad is illegally, illicitly and violently occupied by the united states. I believe that Jerusalem is currently occupied by General Sharon. I'm not alone in that view.

BBC: you're not alone in your view about wanting to end British troops in Iraq, and there are other politicians that have argued the same, but not in terms of the language you employed. Let me finish. You talk of Arab countries collaborating with the rape of two innocent civilians. Are you prepared to take the flak for fanning the flames of an already dangerous situation, purely for the fact of young british youths who may think well here is our justification for staging suicide bombings and going to Al Queda training camps ?

Galloway: Don't you dare try to place responsibility for that on me. I am the person who if listened to we would not have been in this mess. We wouldn't be in Iraq. It should be me accusing you not you accusing me.

/end argument.

Galloway 1.
Media 0.

Nessie
29th November 2012, 06:20 AM
Heh, another classic Galloway cracker defending his comments on 7/7 following the lambasting of him in the media, who totally misrepresented his views and what he said. No wonder the media leaves him alone now! Yet to see him intellectually loose a debate.

lrgm-kekLt0

That is yet another example of how he phrases his words to cause controversy to attract publicity and make out that he is the wronged party. If he moderated his language, he would lose the controversy and the publicity and not be able to play the wronged party.

If the media now leave him alone it is maybe because they have finally seen through his tactic and so do not play his game anymore.

Croydon Bob
29th November 2012, 09:27 AM
Yadda yadda

You seem to be starting to realise how wrong you were. Go back and look at all our exchanges and perhaps you'll realise the full extent of your errors.

HoverBoarder
29th November 2012, 09:42 AM
Heh, that was amusing. He read that woman completely wrong. Methinks that he was gearing himself up for another episode full of Zionist propaganda phone ins, who tend to start out sympathetic to the Palestniians yet when concluding they suddenly come up with the most extreme fear mongering paranoia. At which point I just smile as George impatiently educates them.

You have now said twice "Galloway absolutely supports violence, just for the sides the he supports". I have never seen Galloway support a particular side of any war. He is always the one annoyed about the war happening despite all his anti-war campaigns and frequently rallies with troops parents to get them back safely asap.

He does make a point of stating the bleeding obvious sometimes, warning people that when invading a country that they will likely find continual resistance, it is not in-sighting resistance or violence. He tries to explain why such attacks happen, usually historically or using an Islamic mindset. The victims of this invasion will tend to defend what they see as their land from foreign occupiers. If you can find any evidence of him supporting violence please post it.

"He is not a supporter of peace, and he is habitually dishonest"

I've yet to see any evidence of this either, past your own subjective impressions of his character.

Well that's a whole new level of handwaving justification. Galloway must have made quite an impression to deserve such unquestioning loyalty.

I would bring up how he later in the video further mocked those who wanted to go the way of "Martin Luther King" instead of pursuing the violence route, where he said that "does anyone else think that we should go the way of Martin Luther King? Should they all get together and have a sit in?"

But I have no doubt that you would see that as in no way discouraging those who would choose pursuing options for peace over violence because that is the way that you want to believe it. Nothing much we can do about that.

All of the evidence provided so far can't make a dent because you simply don't want to pay attention to it. Well played.

Unquestioning zealots 1
Skeptics 0

funk de fino
29th November 2012, 11:58 AM
You seem to be starting to realise how wrong you were. Go back and look at all our exchanges and perhaps you'll realise the full extent of your errors.

It is against your membership agreement to change others posts in this fashion. More childish antics. Almost Galloway'ish

funk de fino
29th November 2012, 12:01 PM
Galloway 1.
Media 0.

Now that is an epic fail. You only show more clearly prove how dishonest he is and what a coward he is.

Zeuzzz
29th November 2012, 02:43 PM
Well that's a whole new level of handwaving justification. Galloway must have made quite an impression to deserve such unquestioning loyalty.

I would bring up how he later in the video further mocked those who wanted to go the way of "Martin Luther King" instead of pursuing the violence route, where he said that "does anyone else think that we should go the way of Martin Luther King? Should they all get together and have a sit in?"

But I have no doubt that you would see that as in no way discouraging those who would choose pursuing options for peace over violence because that is the way that you want to believe it. Nothing much we can do about that.

All of the evidence provided so far can't make a dent because you simply don't want to pay attention to it. Well played.

Unquestioning zealots 1
Skeptics 0


I said he got the interview completely wrong, I am agreeing with you. I don't know who you are arguing with here, but it's not me.

Zeuzzz
29th November 2012, 02:45 PM
That is yet another example of how he phrases his words to cause controversy to attract publicity and make out that he is the wronged party. If he moderated his language, he would lose the controversy and the publicity and not be able to play the wronged party.

If the media now leave him alone it is maybe because they have finally seen through his tactic and so do not play his game anymore.


There is along history of him making the media look like fools. He literally does it every time they are out of order. This is why they leave him alone.

And yes he is an incredibly good orator and public speaker, with a very large diction and voluminous vocabulary at his disposal to make his points count.

Zeuzzz
29th November 2012, 09:37 PM
Galloway finally allowed back to Canada, after the ridiculous Jewish Defense League made a claim he was a terrorist and posed a danger to the people of Canada a few years back. Which was hilarious. You should watch the interviews he gave after that accusation. As usual, be beats his opposition into the ground.

Galloway is now armed with the ruling of Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley, who made it clear that the Conservative government used the Immigration Act to prevent Galloway from entering Canada because they disagreed with his political views -- not because he presented any threat to Canadians.

He was greeted with an audience of supporters and much applause at the Airport.

In the evening of Oct. 2, 2010, outspoken anti-war activist and former British MP George Galloway arrived in Canada to a throng of supporters waiting to greet him at the Toronto Pearson International Airport. Eighteen months ago, Galloway was refused entry and deemed a security threat.


OQhJma8QclE

Zeuzzz
29th November 2012, 09:43 PM
He was greeted with an audience of supporters and much applause at the Airport.



Now hows about that? A UK politician that's popular with the people. :eye-poppi

Croydon Bob
30th November 2012, 02:46 PM
It is against your membership agreement to change others posts in this fashion. More childish antics. Almost Galloway'ish

:confused:

I haven't changed anything, what on earth are you talking about? If you think I've done something wrong then complain about it. You seem confused beyond reason and do nothing but engage in random wibbling at me. Sort yourself out, don't keep lying in my direction.

Croydon Bob
30th November 2012, 02:48 PM
Now hows about that? A UK politician that's popular with the people. :eye-poppi

You are taking to yourself now. Second sign of madness. At least I'm having an argument with a genuine nutter.

HoverBoarder
1st December 2012, 10:19 AM
I said he got the interview completely wrong, I am agreeing with you. I don't know who you are arguing with here, but it's not me.

Beyond the whole sexist denigration part, there was the constant encouragement of violence.

Unless you made a mistake in your post by ignoring where he mocked those who "wanted to go the way of Martin Luther King," than my comment is absolutely directed at you.

wishface
3rd December 2012, 12:26 AM
Israel does NOT itentionally target civilians.

Hitler was elected in 1933. Does that mean that he had to defend Germany from that Sole Polish Soldier.

"Israeli Aggression" - Explain all the missiles fired by Hamas.

Hamas are legally proscribed as terrorists by the EU and the US.

Of course Israel targets civilians! Do you think they just close their eyes and indiscriminately press the button marked 'fire'?

Even if Hamas does fire rockets from within civilian areas (if that's true, i don' tknow i don't agree with rockets from either side) - firing back at them is still targeting civilians!

The missiles, such as they are, fired by Hamas, while unacceptable, are an act of desperation by people crammed into a tiny slice of land and abused by an aggressor state that has taken their land and is supported by the west almost without question or sanction. It's not even a balanced situation.

wishface
3rd December 2012, 12:32 AM
The way he phrased his greeting of Sadam, the way he phrased his comments about the Soviet Union and what Assange is supposed to have done is designed to attract publicity. He appears to specialise in denials.

Would you preferred him to rip open his shirt, wave a flag, tie a headband on and punch him in the face singing the star spangled banner?

And even when he is not doing his job as MP, he is not a "peace campaigner or charity fundraiser" either.

He fully supports war, just for the sides that he supports in the wars.

I have never ever heard him say or do anything that supports war. His anti war stance has been perfectly consistent since I first became aware of it to now. How is that supporting war?

Well, there's the photo of him handing wads of cash to the leader of the genocidal Hamas cult... not enough? There's also his speeches lauding the Iraq insurgency (bravely struggling to replace the fledgling Iraqi democracy with a religious totalitarian theocracy).

Link please.
So if a woman you have slept with falls asleep, it's perfectly ok to start screwing her again while she's asleep?


Wow. Just...jesus.

Galloway said such behaviour is brutish, caddish, unacceptable and that one acting thus is acting with the morals of a rat. He also says little that's favourable in regard to Assange's character, from his position of someone that has never met Assange, which he also admits. So, no he doesn't maintain that such an act is perfectly ok.

Craig B
3rd December 2012, 01:47 AM
Israel does NOT itentionally target civilians. Tell that to an Israeli friend of mine (he lives on land illegally annexed from Syria, by the way). Anyway, he was called to the colours as a reservist in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. He told me this on a visit back to Scotland to see his sister several years later. I asked, What did you do in the war? In heavy artillery. And what were your duties? I pulled the cord that fired the gun; they can fire a shell for many miles! And what was many miles away that you were firing at? He squirmed in his chair for a while, shrugged, and said : Beirut.

Quite a few civilians were killed there, as I recall seeing reported in the press.

theprestige
3rd December 2012, 11:03 AM
Tell that to an Israeli friend of mine (he lives on land illegally annexed from Syria, by the way). Anyway, he was called to the colours as a reservist in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. He told me this on a visit back to Scotland to see his sister several years later. I asked, What did you do in the war? In heavy artillery. And what were your duties? I pulled the cord that fired the gun; they can fire a shell for many miles! And what was many miles away that you were firing at? He squirmed in his chair for a while, shrugged, and said : Beirut.

Quite a few civilians were killed there, as I recall seeing reported in the press.

Cool story, bro. Nothing in it is inconsistent with the claim that Israel does not intentionally target civilians.

I note that your friend was not actually involved in intelligence analysis or target selection. Indeed, in your story, your friend wasn't even involved in aiming the artillery or adjusting the fire. So it's only natural that he'd have some vague idea of "Beirut, many miles away" as the target. It's possible he reached some wrong conclusion, based on totally understandable ignorance about what was being targeted, and why.

But that's hardly evidence that Israel intentionally targets civilians.Too bad you don't have any friends with experience in Israeli recon or fire control elements. Even better would be if you were acquainted with an Israeli field commander who had direct oversight of target identification and selection.

I'm not sure why you thought the second-hand recollections of an artillery trigger-puller from a conflict 30 years ago would be relevant to the discussion.

Craig B
3rd December 2012, 12:28 PM
I'm not sure why you thought the second-hand recollections of an artillery trigger-puller from a conflict 30 years ago would be relevant to the discussion. "First hand recollections" please. He deplored and regretted the things he was involved in. Then came the massacres in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps. My friend was on leave in Tel Aviv when these monstrosities occurred, and took part in the huge demonstration of disgust about the conduct of the Lebanon war that took place in protest against this slaughter of civilians.

But still he lives in illegally annexed Syrian territory. Or doesn't Israel illegally annex, occupy and settle territory? Will you deny even that the Zionists do that?

DreadNiK
15th April 2013, 02:04 PM
slight necro (more like brief cryo) just in case it was missed (I ran a search)

[2010]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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/10/george-galloway-north-korea-has-innocent-culture_n_3050682.html

alerted to by

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/qa-so-north-korean-defector-jooil-kim-what-was-life-like-for-you-at-home-8573651.html

Q: What did you think of George Galloway's comments last week? <detail>

A: -snip-I don't want to call him and idiot, but...


you might have lost the bet though, it took him a while. though while googling I think I saw a reference to him having come out in support of them before

is there a medical term for his compulsion? I mean the Palestinian territories are one thing, but afaik North Korea is basically a horror cribbed from 1984 and probably vies with the DRC as 'country one would least like to be born into as an average citizen'?

dudalb
15th April 2013, 02:31 PM
slight necro (more like brief cryo) just in case it was missed (I ran a search)



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/10/george-galloway-north-korea-has-innocent-culture_n_3050682.html

alerted to by

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/qa-so-north-korean-defector-jooil-kim-what-was-life-like-for-you-at-home-8573651.html

Q: What did you think of George Galloway's comments last week? <detail>

A: -snip-I don't want to call him and idiot, but...


you might have lost the bet though, it took him a while. though while googling I think I saw a reference to him having come out in support of them before

is there a medical term for his compulsion? I mean the Palestinian territories are one thing, but afaik North Korea is basically a horror cribbed from 1984 and probably vies with the DRC as 'country one would least like to be born into as an average citizen'?


I knew Gorgeous George would get around to supporting North Korea,it was only a question of how long.
Let's face it, Georgie Boy will support ANY lunatic regime if it is anti American.

His version of the first Korean war is so incredbly stupid as to make the mind boggle. But his supporters will eat it up....

JihadJane
15th April 2013, 06:09 PM
George Galloway gives a great send off to the much hated Margaret Thatcher:


SLbFWivsfFE

Craig B
16th April 2013, 07:30 AM
I knew Gorgeous George would get around to supporting North Korea,it was only a question of how long.
Let's face it, Georgie Boy will support ANY lunatic regime if it is anti American.

His version of the first Korean war is so incredbly stupid as to make the mind boggle. But his supporters will eat it up.... This, from the Huff article, is designed no doubt to please his Muslim entourage of supporters.Galloway reiterates that he would not "like to live in North Korea". "Not least because they certainly don’t believe in God in North Korea,” he continued.

Nogbad
16th April 2013, 02:22 PM
This, from the Huff article, is designed no doubt to please his Muslim entourage of supporters.


I thought North Korea was very religious ,,,they bow to their God every morning

and he has an odd haircut.

Craig B
17th April 2013, 12:38 AM
I thought North Korea was very religious ,,,they bow to their God every morning

and he has an odd haircut. Does YHWH have hair to cut, I wonder. If so, who cuts it? BTW he does have at least one hand, and back parts. See exodus 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Nessie
17th April 2013, 09:41 AM
Would you preferred him to rip open his shirt, wave a flag, tie a headband on and punch him in the face singing the star spangled banner?

...

No, this

http://kpbsfs.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/galloway1.jpg

Toontown
18th April 2013, 12:00 PM
Galloway: Don't you dare try to place responsibility for that on me. I am the person who if listened to we would not have been in this mess. We wouldn't be in Iraq. It should be me accusing you not you accusing me.

/end argument.

Galloway 1.
Media 0.

True. We wouldn't be in Iraq, but the Hussein family would still be there, all de-sanctioned, oil-rich, still paying $25,000 a head for suicide bombers and replenishing their WMD stocks.

But still, we wouldn't be in this mess. We'd be in a whole different mess. Galloway's mess. But not Galloway himself. He'd be riding tall in the saddle, sneering down on all of you, collecting regular retainer payments from old Saddam. or Uday, or Kusay, or whatever psychopath would be in charge now.

Georgie Boy has his hypotheticals. I have mine.

wishface
19th April 2013, 06:27 AM
Most things Galloway says, having never met him nor known him persionally (and why/how would I, he isn't my MP), I agree with. Even his comments regarding the Assange rape case are constantly misrepresented or painted hysterically.

He may be an utter tosser, I don't know. I 'm not reallyc omfortable making that judgement when the only criticism I ever hear comes from questionable sources and uses the same tired 'he's the MP for baghdad south' crap that's years out of date.

theprestige
19th April 2013, 11:02 AM
Most things Galloway says, having never met him nor known him persionally (and why/how would I, he isn't my MP), I agree with. Even his comments regarding the Assange rape case are constantly misrepresented or painted hysterically.

I haven't seen his comments regarding the Assange rape case. Do you have a cite for the comments you have in mind?

wishface
20th April 2013, 12:01 AM
No, this

http://kpbsfs.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/galloway1.jpg

I don't get it.

So he made an ass of himself on TV dressing up in a leotard and being a cat.

So what?

wishface
20th April 2013, 12:07 AM
I haven't seen his comments regarding the Assange rape case. Do you have a cite for the comments you have in mind?

His 'Moluca Red' youtube channel has him addressing this. You can search it as linking to youtube here doesn't work.

DreadNiK
20th April 2013, 12:22 AM
if people can't see what George Galloway is, then I don't consider those people's opinions worth much frankly.

Asking 'is George Galloway a complete tool' is akin to asking is 'Alex Jones a nutter' and the only way the answer is no is if somehow it is a giant, genius trolling (which unfortunately it isn't)

Craig B
20th April 2013, 01:04 AM
if people can't see what George Galloway is, then I don't consider those people's opinions worth much frankly.

Asking 'is George Galloway a complete tool' is akin to asking is 'Alex Jones a nutter' and the only way the answer is no is if somehow it is a giant, genius trolling (which unfortunately it isn't) Like many self seeking self-publicists Galloway sometimes fastens on really important issues and has interesting things to say about them. It is this characteristic that camouflages his real character as far as some observers of his antics are concerned. But the Big Brother cat episode, let alone the astonishing Saddam admiration declaration, really should put people right.

theprestige
20th April 2013, 07:41 AM
His 'Moluca Red' youtube channel has him addressing this. You can search it as linking to youtube here doesn't work.

Example YouTube link (not Galloway):
NRIr9MNmCwU

I'm not going to search for Galloway's YT channel. I'm not going to sit through who knows however many minutes of bloviating are necessary to find whatever comments you're referring to.

Is there a transcript?

dudalb
25th April 2013, 01:27 PM
We don't need to misrepresent Galloway to make him look bad. We just need to quote what he says......

jiggeryqua
25th April 2013, 01:38 PM
We don't need to misrepresent Galloway to make him look bad. We just need to quote what he says......

...and hold a different opinion. Because we are right and good and proper, and those who say things we mock are bad.

JihadJane
27th April 2013, 02:13 AM
Galloway does us all a favor again by accurately and entertainingly describing Blue Labour leader Miliband as 'a coward with the backbone of an amoeba'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/26/george-galloway-spat-ed-miliband

Craig B
27th April 2013, 06:29 AM
Galloway does us all a favor again by accurately and entertainingly describing Blue Labour leader Miliband as 'a coward with the backbone of an amoeba'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/26/george-galloway-spat-ed-miliband

On the other hand he did nobody (or perhaps only one person) a favour in 1994 by indulging in a public discourse from which I have selected the following remarkable expressions: ... I've just spent two weeks in the occupied Palestinian territories. I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support ... I thought the president would appreciate knowing that even today, three years after the war, I still met families who were calling their newborn sons Saddam ... And the Youth Club in Silwan, which is the one of the most resistant of all the villages around Jerusalem, asked me to ask the president's permission if they could enrol him as an honorary member of their club and to present him with this flag from holy Jerusalem ...
Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem] From The Times, January 20, 1994, citing BBC monitoring service at 9 PM on January 19 as its source. Speech to Saddam Hussein, January 19, 1994. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Galloway.

JihadJane
27th April 2013, 03:01 PM
On the other hand he did nobody (or perhaps only one person) a favour in 1994 by indulging in a public discourse from which I have selected the following remarkable expressions: From The Times, January 20, 1994, citing BBC monitoring service at 9 PM on January 19 as its source. Speech to Saddam Hussein, January 19, 1994. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Galloway.

Yawn.

As poster kgbgb commented on the Guardian Milliband article

"George Galloway has been a long time opponent of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, including in the eighties, when Saddam was the bully of choice in the West, lauded for his invasion of Iran.

Galloway met Saddam in 1995, with two purposes, both directed towards the Iraqi people; to convey the thanks of the Gazan Palestinians for Iraqi support, and to try an help broker a deal that would end the sanctions that were causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi children.

His "salute" to Saddam has, of course, been taken out of contextual meaning. Spoken in English, it was translated by an intepreter into Arabic for Saddam. The interpreter conveyed the context; the "you" being saluted was correctly translated as the plural pronoun, meaning the Iraqi people, not Saddam personally. This is consistent with the tone of his full address, which referenced Iraqis, not Saddam."

How would you have approached Saddam Hussein in these circumstances, Craig B?

Craig B
27th April 2013, 04:08 PM
Yawn.

As poster kgbgb commented on the Guardian Milliband article

"George Galloway has been a long time opponent of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, including in the eighties, when Saddam was the bully of choice in the West, lauded for his invasion of Iran.

Galloway met Saddam in 1995, with two purposes, both directed towards the Iraqi people; to convey the thanks of the Gazan Palestinians for Iraqi support, and to try an help broker a deal that would end the sanctions that were causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi children.

His "salute" to Saddam has, of course, been taken out of contextual meaning. Spoken in English, it was translated by an intepreter into Arabic for Saddam. The interpreter conveyed the context; the "you" being saluted was correctly translated as the plural pronoun, meaning the Iraqi people, not Saddam personally. This is consistent with the tone of his full address, which referenced Iraqis, not Saddam."

How would you have approached Saddam Hussein in these circumstances, Craig B? I would not have approached him at all. Your source, Guardian poster kgbgb, is being "disingenuous", if I may use that polite term, in stating that the tone of his address referenced Iraqis, not Saddam. Whatever may be as regards the "tone", the words uttered by Galloway clearly also reference Saddam. I have given examples: I thought the president would appreciate knowing that even today, three years after the war, I still met families who were calling their newborn sons Saddam ... And the Youth Club in Silwan, which is the one of the most resistant of all the villages around Jerusalem, asked me to ask the president's permission if they could enrol him as an honorary member of their club and to present him with this flag from holy Jerusalem ... There was no need for this sickening stuff to be uttered in front of TV cameras and microphones, or to be uttered at all for that matter. But if this question bores you and makes you yawn, then why pursue it?

squealpiggy
27th April 2013, 04:13 PM
Yawn.

As poster kgbgb commented on the Guardian Milliband article

"George Galloway has been a long time opponent of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, including in the eighties, when Saddam was the bully of choice in the West, lauded for his invasion of Iran.

Galloway met Saddam in 1995, with two purposes, both directed towards the Iraqi people; to convey the thanks of the Gazan Palestinians for Iraqi support, and to try an help broker a deal that would end the sanctions that were causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi children.

His "salute" to Saddam has, of course, been taken out of contextual meaning. Spoken in English, it was translated by an intepreter into Arabic for Saddam. The interpreter conveyed the context; the "you" being saluted was correctly translated as the plural pronoun, meaning the Iraqi people, not Saddam personally. This is consistent with the tone of his full address, which referenced Iraqis, not Saddam."

How would you have approached Saddam Hussein in these circumstances, Craig B?

He spoke the words in English and they were translated. He was clearly addressing Saddam and not Iraq as a nation.

JihadJane
28th April 2013, 04:52 AM
I would not have approached him at all. Your source, Guardian poster kgbgb, is being "disingenuous", if I may use that polite term, in stating that the tone of his address referenced Iraqis, not Saddam. Whatever may be as regards the "tone", the words uttered by Galloway clearly also reference Saddam. I have given examples: There was no need for this sickening stuff to be uttered in front of TV cameras and microphones, or to be uttered at all for that matter. But if this question bores you and makes you yawn, then why pursue it?


Doing nothing to stop the hundreds of thousands of children being killing by UN sanctions and inventing reality to suit your prejudices would be easier, yes. Your moral stance is impressive!

What's your view of other politicians who had love-ins with Saddam so they could sell him arms?

He spoke the words in English and they were translated. He was clearly addressing Saddam and not Iraq as a nation.

"Let's be perfectly clear" is a catch phrase often uttered by politicians to announce they the are lying, obfuscating or simply haven't a clue what they're talking about. How did you reach your conclusion that Galloway "was clearly addressing Saddam"? What's your evidence, squealpiggy?

squealpiggy
28th April 2013, 05:30 AM
"Let's be perfectly clear" is a catch phrase often uttered by politicians to announce they the are lying, obfuscating or simply haven't a clue what they're talking about. How did you reach your conclusion that Galloway "was clearly addressing Saddam"? What's your evidence, squealpiggy?

The words as spoken, in English by Galloway to Saddam Hussein in which he addressed Saddam by name.

Claiming that the words relayed in Farsi to Saddam were a mistranslation is a staggering bit of revisionism, even for you.

Craig B
28th April 2013, 06:43 AM
Doing nothing to stop the hundreds of thousands of children being killing by UN sanctions and inventing reality to suit your prejudices would be easier, yes. Your moral stance is impressive! I don't know what you are talking about. You have explained to us the errands which brought Galloway into Saddam's presence.to convey the thanks of the Gazan Palestinians for Iraqi support This could have been done more appropriately by a Palestinian. It is not an urgent matter requiring direct communication between Galloway and Saddam.to try an help broker a deal that would end the sanctions that were causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi children. Now, tell me why that entails public declarations like this, even if it was addressed to the Iraqi people:Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem] Is this the language of a person trying to broker a deal about UN sanctions? In what way do these words advance such a cause? Far less still do these following words advance it!I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support ... I thought the president would appreciate knowing that even today, three years after the war, I still met families who were calling their newborn sons Saddam ... That can't possibly help to broker any deal, and it is not addressed to the Iraqi people, unless they're all called Saddam.What's your view of other politicians who had love-ins with Saddam so they could sell him arms? Look at the things I have written and tell me which of them indicates that I would take a favourable view of that conduct. It is not I who praise and flatter Saddam! It's Galloway who does that."Let's be perfectly clear" is a catch phrase often uttered by politicians to announce they the are lying, obfuscating or simply haven't a clue what they're talking about. How did you reach your conclusion that Galloway "was clearly addressing Saddam"? What's your evidence, squealpiggy?The evidence is in the words I have quoted about naming babies after Saddam, and stuff like that, as I hope squealpiggy will agree.

WildCat
28th April 2013, 08:29 AM
...and hold a different opinion. Because we are right and good and proper, and those who say things we mock are bad.
Right, whether someone thinks a genocidal anti-Semitic group is good or bad is just a matter of opinion. Just like whether you think Nazis are good or bad, it's just opinion. Some people, after all, think the world would be a better place without Jews, and some disagree. No need to get upset about an opinion, there's no "right" or "wrong" opinion.

jiggeryqua
28th April 2013, 08:47 AM
Right, whether someone thinks a genocidal anti-Semitic group is good or bad is just a matter of opinion. Just like whether you think Nazis are good or bad, it's just opinion. Some people, after all, think the world would be a better place without Jews, and some disagree. No need to get upset about an opinion, there's no "right" or "wrong" opinion.


Sorry, are you saying Galloway's a Nazi? (I'm letting the 'you' go in that one, it's far too easy to take offence and far too easy to reply "I meant the impersonal 'you'").

One of the real positive points of this forum is that it doesn't outlaw opinions, however appalling they may be to most of us. That's because opinions aren't "right" or "wrong", however fond you are of yours and no matter how distasteful some are to you (there's a big clue there in the word 'distasteful'). You can legislate against the expression of some opinions, should you have the means and the will, but that would only make them 'legal' and 'illegal'. You can contribute to the social acceptance of some opinions, but that still doesn't make them 'right' or 'wrong' - it just makes them 'acceptable here, among us' or 'unacceptable here, only they say that sort of thing'.

I understand that some people can find this sort of thing quite difficult to accept. In their minds, they are (of course) absolutely, positively, unarguably right. Naturally enough, those who disagree with them are completely, obviously, indisputably wrong. But you only have to consider for a moment that the other fellow thinks just as you do: "I am right".

So, Galloway is neither right nor wrong (at least, not if you want either word to retain any useful meaning). Instead, we either 'agree' or 'disagree' with Galloway. Do you see?

WildCat
28th April 2013, 09:02 AM
Sorry, are you saying Galloway's a Nazi? (I'm letting the 'you' go in that one, it's far too easy to take offence and far too easy to reply "I meant the impersonal 'you'").
He openly supports a group (Hamas) which openly states their desire to fulfill god's wish by killing all the Jews.

No different than Nazis really, and no doubt you'd likewise refuse to condemn a politician who openly supports Nazis because it's just an opinion, right?

One of the real positive points of this forum is that it doesn't outlaw opinions, however appalling they may be to most of us. That's because opinions aren't "right" or "wrong", however fond you are of yours and no matter how distasteful some are to you (there's a big clue there in the word 'distasteful').
That's what I said. If someone thinks all the Jews should be killed it's not "right" or "wrong", it's just an opinion. No need to condemn them for it.

You can legislate against the expression of some opinions, should you have the means and the will, but that would only make them 'legal' and 'illegal'. You can contribute to the social acceptance of some opinions, but that still doesn't make them 'right' or 'wrong' - it just makes them 'acceptable here, among us' or 'unacceptable here, only they say that sort of thing'.
I am against legislating against any and all opinions and the expression of them, even if it's burning poppies on Remembrance Day.

I understand that some people can find this sort of thing quite difficult to accept. In their minds, they are (of course) absolutely, positively, unarguably right. Naturally enough, those who disagree with them are completely, obviously, indisputably wrong. But you only have to consider for a moment that the other fellow thinks just as you do: "I am right".
Exactly, saying that all Jews should be killed isn't right or wrong, it's just an opinion.

So, Galloway is neither right nor wrong (at least, not if you want either word to retain any useful meaning). Instead, we either 'agree' or 'disagree' with Galloway. Do you see?
Of course he's not, he's just a fervent supporter of an openly genocidal group that wants to kill all the Jews. No need to get emotional over an opinion, after all Hamas does other things besides striving to kill all the Jews. They feed the hungry and kill homosexuals and oppress women too, they're not one-dimensional.

Craig B
28th April 2013, 09:02 AM
Sorry, are you saying Galloway's a Nazi? For the moment, please let me ignore the rest of our post. Personally, I do not think Galloway is a Nazi, and I don't think he's an anti-Semite either, although I find him quite execrable, in general.

JihadJane
28th April 2013, 09:16 AM
The words as spoken, in English by Galloway to Saddam Hussein in which he addressed Saddam by name.

Claiming that the words relayed in Farsi to Saddam were a mistranslation is a staggering bit of revisionism, even for you.


I claimed no such thing.

I also wager you know next to nothing about me



I don't know what you are talking about.

I'm talking about your concern trolling and the apparent belief in the moral purity of doing nothing.

You have explained to us the errands which brought Galloway into Saddam's presence. This could have been done more appropriately by a Palestinian. It is not an urgent matter requiring direct communication between Galloway and Saddam.

Galloway was present as a representative of the British people, trying to prevent a war that would kill hundreds of thousands of people and destroy a modern, technologically advanced, secular society with a very high standard of literacy and healthcare. He had been, and still is, a major defender of the Palestinian people so it is entirely appropriate that he should convey their thanks for Iraq's support.

"I was trying to stop a disastrous war. I wanted to convey the feeling of the Iraqi people - that they should extend an olive branch to Great Britain," he said.

"I had spent many years trying to do that. That's why I asked Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back in."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4016803.stm


Now, tell me why that entails public declarations like this, even if it was addressed to the Iraqi people: Is this the language of a person trying to broker a deal about UN sanctions? In what way do these words advance such a cause? Far less still do these following words advance it! That can't possibly help to broker any deal, and it is not addressed to the Iraqi people, unless they're all called Saddam.

The words were part of an appeal to a brutal dictator, a dictator that Galloway had condemned as a brutal dictator many years before anyone else did. The words are examples of the dirty art of diplomacy.


Look at the things I have written and tell me which of them indicates that I would take a favourable view of that conduct.

I asked you a simple question. I wasn't accusing you of anything. Perhaps you'd like to answer the question now. I look forward to reading your passionate and contemptuous condemnations of the various high-profile politicians, diplomats and businessmen who cozied up to Saddam and his regime.

It is not I who praise and flatter Saddam! It's Galloway who does that.The evidence is in the words I have quoted about naming babies after Saddam, and stuff like that, as I hope squealpiggy will agree.

Your interpretation ignores Galloway's consistent condemnation of Saddam Hussein over many decades and, appears to be informed by ignorant, politically motivated spin rather than any actual knowledge of what Galloway was doing in Iraq.

Palestinians were doing exactly what Galloway said they were doing. As one of the most powerful defenders of the Palestinian people Hussein was very popular in Palestine. They were grateful for his help.

Craig B
28th April 2013, 10:06 AM
@JihadJane

I do not indulge in "concern trolling". I really am concerned. And personally I have no question in this matter to answer at your behest, about western contacts with that tyrant. Nor have I any intention of permitting myself to be distracted from the matter in hand.

jiggeryqua
28th April 2013, 10:16 AM
He openly supports a group (Hamas) which openly states their desire to fulfill god's wish by killing all the Jews.

No different than Nazis really, and no doubt you'd likewise refuse to condemn a politician who openly supports Nazis because it's just an opinion, right?

"no doubt", eh? We weren't really talking about my opinions, but since you ask, it's my opinion that the Nazis were...well, wrong. But that opinion is neither right nor wrong, it's just an opinion. Similarly, it's my opinion that supporting Nazis is wrong, but I don't pretend that's the 'right' opinion, it's just my opinion. Is this becoming clearer for you? If it helps, here's an example of something that is both an opinion and unequivocally wrong:
no doubt you'd likewise refuse to condemn a politician who openly supports Nazis because it's just an opinion, right?



That's what I said. If someone thinks all the Jews should be killed it's not "right" or "wrong", it's just an opinion. No need to condemn them for it.

You're almost getting the hang of it. Personally, I see a need to condemn them for it (do you remember we spoke about 'social acceptability'?), but you don't. Neither of us is 'right' or 'wrong'.


I am against legislating against any and all opinions and the expression of them, even if it's burning poppies on Remembrance Day.

Which is worse than burning jews, obviously... :rolleyes:


Exactly, saying that all Jews should be killed isn't right or wrong, it's just an opinion.
Didn't we just cover that point? Then you said:

No need to condemn them for it.
which is where we disagree. Note, this is not science. Just because we disagree does not mean one of us is 'right' and the other 'wrong'. I disagree with your opinion that the statement 'all Jews should be killed' shouldn't be condemned, for example. I think that statement should be condemned (though I'd hesitate to condemn the person based on one statement, let alone someone's opinion of the meaning of some statement)


Of course he's not, he's just a fervent supporter of an openly genocidal group that wants to kill all the Jews. No need to get emotional over an opinion, after all Hamas does other things besides striving to kill all the Jews. They feed the hungry and kill homosexuals and oppress women too, they're not one-dimensional.

Oh, we were doing quite well for a while...let me try again. You disagree with Galloway. You disagree with Hamas. Hamas disagrees with you. Galloway disagrees with you. You say you are right, and Galloway is wrong. Galloway says he is right and you are wrong. Observers will form their own opinions, agreeing or disagreeing. But none of us are objectively right about something that is outside the realm of the hard sciences. Some people will no doubt dismiss that argument as 'wrong' because it doesn't make them 'right'. Defining 'right' as 'something I think' and 'wrong' as 'disagreeing with me' devalues both words to the point that they become meaningless and the deployment of them becomes mere incivility.

WildCat
28th April 2013, 02:44 PM
"no doubt", eh? We weren't really talking about my opinions, but since you ask, it's my opinion that the Nazis were...well, wrong. But that opinion is neither right nor wrong, it's just an opinion. Similarly, it's my opinion that supporting Nazis is wrong, but I don't pretend that's the 'right' opinion, it's just my opinion. Is this becoming clearer for you? If it helps, here's an example of something that is both an opinion and unequivocally wrong:





You're almost getting the hang of it. Personally, I see a need to condemn them for it (do you remember we spoke about 'social acceptability'?), but you don't. Neither of us is 'right' or 'wrong'.



Which is worse than burning jews, obviously... :rolleyes:


Didn't we just cover that point? Then you said:

which is where we disagree. Note, this is not science. Just because we disagree does not mean one of us is 'right' and the other 'wrong'. I disagree with your opinion that the statement 'all Jews should be killed' shouldn't be condemned, for example. I think that statement should be condemned (though I'd hesitate to condemn the person based on one statement, let alone someone's opinion of the meaning of some statement)



Oh, we were doing quite well for a while...let me try again. You disagree with Galloway. You disagree with Hamas. Hamas disagrees with you. Galloway disagrees with you. You say you are right, and Galloway is wrong. Galloway says he is right and you are wrong. Observers will form their own opinions, agreeing or disagreeing. But none of us are objectively right about something that is outside the realm of the hard sciences. Some people will no doubt dismiss that argument as 'wrong' because it doesn't make them 'right'. Defining 'right' as 'something I think' and 'wrong' as 'disagreeing with me' devalues both words to the point that they become meaningless and the deployment of them becomes mere incivility.
Put it this way: I think Galloway is a vile, despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being. I would feel the same about any American pol who courted the vote of racist neo-nazis and such by publicly proclaiming "today we are all the Ku Klux Klan" at a public rally.

The difference is no one on the left would dare praise an American pol who did that, yet they refuse to call out Galloway for his equally horrendous public proclamations praising Hamas and in fact he's a darling to many on the left, including some who post on this very forum. There's no excuse for supporting such a figure.

jiggeryqua
28th April 2013, 05:12 PM
Put it this way: I think Galloway is a vile, despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being. I would feel the same about any American pol who courted the vote of racist neo-nazis and such by publicly proclaiming "today we are all the Ku Klux Klan" at a public rally.

The difference is no one on the left would dare praise an American pol who did that, yet they refuse to call out Galloway for his equally horrendous public proclamations praising Hamas and in fact he's a darling to many on the left, including some who post on this very forum. There's no excuse for supporting such a figure.

I would imagine the 'excuse' for supporting such a figure is that you (the impersonal 'you') think he's 'right'. You (the personal you) think he's 'wrong'. We know this. Merely repeating it in ever more colourful ways doesn't further discussion, especially with regard to your sticking point: that some opinions are intrinsically either right or wrong, where 'right' is redefined as 'agrees with me' and 'wrong' means 'disagrees with me'.

Luckily, it's not an opinion when I dismiss your sweeping claims about those on the 'left' (or 'in the wrong', as you might say) as unsupportable - that's a fact. At the risk of drifting off-topic, but intending to cast light on Views On George Galloway by the 'compare and contrast' method, is there anyone on the 'right' (I begin to see where this confusion of yours springs from...) who would condemn Margaret Thatcher as "a vile, despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being" given her support of the Khmer Rouge and her consequent culpability in the maiming of Cambodian children?

WildCat
28th April 2013, 07:44 PM
I would imagine the 'excuse' for supporting such a figure is that you (the impersonal 'you') think he's 'right'. You (the personal you) think he's 'wrong'. We know this. Merely repeating it in ever more colourful ways doesn't further discussion, especially with regard to your sticking point: that some opinions are intrinsically either right or wrong, where 'right' is redefined as 'agrees with me' and 'wrong' means 'disagrees with me'.

Luckily, it's not an opinion when I dismiss your sweeping claims about those on the 'left' (or 'in the wrong', as you might say) as unsupportable - that's a fact. At the risk of drifting off-topic, but intending to cast light on Views On George Galloway by the 'compare and contrast' method, is there anyone on the 'right' (I begin to see where this confusion of yours springs from...) who would condemn Margaret Thatcher as "a vile, despicable, disgusting excuse for a human being" given her support of the Khmer Rouge and her consequent culpability in the maiming of Cambodian children?
Did Thatcher lead a cheering crowd in Trafalgar Square chanting "Today we are all the Khmer Rouge" while chanting Khmer Rouge slogans? Did she describe Pol Pot as her friend?

KfV03F_Dbf0

Disgusting human being, every bit as despicable as the typical Stormfront member.

jiggeryqua
28th April 2013, 08:24 PM
Did Thatcher lead a cheering crowd in Trafalgar Square chanting "Today we are all the Khmer Rouge" while chanting Khmer Rouge slogans? Did she describe Pol Pot as her friend?

KfV03F_Dbf0

Disgusting human being, every bit as despicable as the typical Stormfront member.

No, she preached to a larger crowd on national television that there was no such thing as society, and she lied about her friendship with Pol Pot to parliament. She was more open as regards her friendship with murderous right-wing dictator Pinochet. She was, by your standards, a "disgusting human being"...except she was on the right, so also right. It's been very informative to learn not only that there are objective measures of 'right' and 'wrong', but also that 'wrong' can be 'right' provided it comes from the right and that the left, being the opposite of right, are therefore 'wrong'.

Craig B
28th April 2013, 09:16 PM
The difference is no one on the left would dare praise an American pol who did that, yet they refuse to call out Galloway for his equally horrendous public proclamations praising Hamas and in fact he's a darling to many on the left, including some who post on this very forum. There's no excuse for supporting such a figure. The above contains a contradiction. First you say that "no one on the left would dare praise ... etc", then "they" which must mean in this context, all people on the left. Then: Galloway is a darling to "many" on the left. You are in danger of appearing to be throwing out poorly thought out statements on this, intended simply to disparage the "left" in general, by association. Anyway you must know that Galloway is not universally admired by either left or right.

WildCat
28th April 2013, 09:48 PM
The above contains a contradiction. First you say that "no one on the left would dare praise ... etc", then "they" which must mean in this context, all people on the left. Then: Galloway is a darling to "many" on the left. You are in danger of appearing to be throwing out poorly thought out statements on this, intended simply to disparage the "left" in general, by association. Anyway you must know that Galloway is not universally admired by either left or right.
I never said Galloway was "universally admired". I said many do, and those people are invariably on the left. Who the hell voted him to Parliament, right wingers?

And what's the contradiction? Do you have examples of those on the left praising neo-nazis and the KKK?

WildCat
28th April 2013, 09:54 PM
No, she preached to a larger crowd on national television that there was no such thing as society, and she lied about her friendship with Pol Pot to parliament.
She was friends with Pol Pot? Like this friendship?
isn_X9GQM8s

She was more open as regards her friendship with murderous right-wing dictator Pinochet. She was, by your standards, a "disgusting human being"...except she was on the right, so also right. It's been very informative to learn not only that there are objective measures of 'right' and 'wrong', but also that 'wrong' can be 'right' provided it comes from the right and that the left, being the opposite of right, are therefore 'wrong'.
Pinochet was an evil bastard, but he didn't advocate genocide like Hamas does. And even if Thatcher danced the lambada naked with Pinochet it doesn't excuse Galloway's support of the genocidal raging anti-Semitic terrorist group Hamas.

Craig B
28th April 2013, 09:59 PM
I never said Galloway was "universally admired". I said many do, and those people are invariably on the left. Who the hell voted him to Parliament, right wingers? Yes, in some cases. He appeals to certain categories of bigoted religious reactionaries.And what's the contradiction? Do you have examples of those on the left praising neo-nazis and the KKK? Of course not. I have examples of those on the Right praising Pinochet, arming Saddam, denying the Holocaust and the like. But I do not use this fact to accuse all "rightists", eg the minutes secretary of a Conservative Party branch in my home town in Scotland, of being raving fascists, by association with other "examples of those on the right".

WildCat
28th April 2013, 10:11 PM
Yes, in some cases. He appeals to certain categories of bigoted religious reactionaries. Of course not. I have examples of those on the Right praising Pinochet, arming Saddam, denying the Holocaust and the like. But I do not use this fact to accuse all "rightists", eg the minutes secretary of a Conservative Party branch in my home town in Scotland, of being raving fascists, by association with other "examples of those on the right".
Is Galloway an evil, vile disgusting human being for supporting Hamas or not? It's a simple question, the answer shouldn't require more than a single word.

Craig B
28th April 2013, 10:59 PM
Is Galloway an evil, vile disgusting human being for supporting Hamas or not? It's a simple question, the answer shouldn't require more than a single word. Then why have you wasted so much space on this thread with a show of elaborated and reasoned argument? It is not your view of Hamas I am concerned about, but your view of the unfortunate Palestinians. It is their plight that Galloway is using, in my estimation, for the purposes of self promotion. This I deplore.

WildCat
29th April 2013, 06:22 AM
Then why have you wasted so much space on this thread with a show of elaborated and reasoned argument? It is not your view of Hamas I am concerned about, but your view of the unfortunate Palestinians. It is their plight that Galloway is using, in my estimation, for the purposes of self promotion. This I deplore.
Are you unable to answer a simple question? Would you like to try again, this time actually responding to the actual question?

IDB87
29th April 2013, 06:55 AM
Galloway was present as a representative of the British people, trying to prevent a war that would kill hundreds of thousands of people and destroy a modern, technologically advanced, secular society with a very high standard of literacy and healthcare.

And that technologically advanced society should be able to invade and annex whomever they want, especially if they happen to owe that country billions of dollars.

Craig B
29th April 2013, 10:12 AM
Are you unable to answer a simple question? Would you like to try again, this time actually responding to the actual question? Why don't you get in touch with JihadJane who used the same approach in #944? My response is at #945. I have said absolutely nothing that entitles you to suppose that I admire Hamas, or that I admire Galloway. On the contrary. Therefore I have no occasion to respond.

kmortis
29th April 2013, 10:23 AM
Due to poor behavior, this thread is now on Moderated status at least until a moderator can go through and clean it up. We might take it off moderated status at that point or, more likely, it'll stay moderated until we see a definitive change in behavior.

As always, do not start other threads to get around this moderation.

funk de fino
10th May 2013, 03:38 PM
Gorgeous George on TV at the moment and seems to have Henna dyed his beardy. Vain old fart.

Craig B
11th May 2013, 06:26 AM
Gorgeous George on TV at the moment and seems to have Henna dyed his beardy. Vain old fart. More to the point, what is he talking about this time?

JihadJane
11th May 2013, 05:08 PM
More to the point, what is he talking about this time?

'Galloway calls for peaceful removal of Bangladesh 'gangster government' (http://www.votegeorgegalloway.com/2013/05/galloway-calls-for-peaceful-removal-of.html)'

George Galloway last night called for the peaceful overthrow of the Sheikh Hasina/Awami League government in Bangladesh. Speaking at a huge protest rally in East London, Galloway denounced the massacre of Islamic scholars earlier in the week.

Craig B
12th May 2013, 12:17 AM
'Galloway calls for peaceful removal of Bangladesh 'gangster government' (http://www.votegeorgegalloway.com/2013/05/galloway-calls-for-peaceful-removal-of.html)' He may well intentioned in the statements attributed to him, but equally this appearance before a huge rally will keep him in the forefront of the minds of many potential Muslim voters in east London. These are his main base of support.

Virus
14th May 2013, 06:04 AM
George Galloway claims Israel is behind Al-Qaeda;

mrdanDH6E6g#!

jiggeryqua
14th May 2013, 06:35 PM
He may well intentioned in the statements attributed to him, but equally this appearance before a huge rally will keep him in the forefront of the minds of many potential Muslim voters in east London. These are his main base of support.

'Politician Plays To His Electorate' :jaw-dropp

In other news, Dog Bites Man...

Craig B
14th May 2013, 10:05 PM
George Galloway claims Israel is behind Al-Qaeda;

mrdanDH6E6g#! Your point would be well made if you had reported what Galloway in fact said: that "Israel gave Al-Qaeda chemical weapons". He offered no evidence to substantiate this serious charge, except his own belief. Where and to whom did he make this speech? Was it made at the rally in East London, I wonder?

JihadJane
16th May 2013, 03:00 AM
Is East London not part of the United Kingdom any more?

Craig B
16th May 2013, 07:33 AM
Is East London not part of the United Kingdom any more? Yes it is. I have suggested that George Galloway is keeping himself in the forefront of the minds of Muslim voters in areas of Muslim residence. My proposition is that he is doing this to increase his political support base within the United Kingdom.

So I wondered if his statements had been made in this area, in which I have read that he made a recent public speech.