Galloway is back - Page 6

WildCat · 1st April 2012, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Not in this thread he hasn't.

Still waiting for your evidence.

So the video of him giving cash to Hamas is not evidence of him giving cash to Hamas?

Pay close attention at 2:30 of the video already provided.

Oh well, handwave away Darat.

WildCat · 1st April 2012, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by joolz

FTFY

Correct.

He didn't give it to the PA, he gave it to Hamas in Gaza.

joolz · 1st April 2012, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

The evidence that he funded a terrorist organization is that video of him funding a terrorist organization.

What video? Link to it here please. I haven't seen any video of him meeting Hamas or any other terrorist organisations or even mentioning giving them money. You can't make vague accusations like that without being called on to prove them, as you've been asked to do already in this thread.

joolz · 1st April 2012, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

He didn't give it to the PA, he gave it to Hamas in Gaza.

Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palestinian Government elected in Gaza.

ETA: As evidenced by your own video at 2:07. You can even read the subtitles saying he is giving the money to the elected governnment of Palestine if you don't understand the Arabic.

Ziggurat · 1st April 2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

An "unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for"? Sounds like a perfect description of Brussels.

Quote:

Wouldn't it be Eurosceptic, anyway?

Touché.

Ziggurat · 1st April 2012, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by joolz

What video? Link to it here please.

What is it with people not being able to follow a thread?

Originally Posted by joolz

Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palastinian Government elected in Gaza.

Did their electoral success stop Hamas from being a terrorist organization? Because I missed that memo. So apparently did their foot soldiers.

Childlike Empress · 1st April 2012, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by joolz

ETA: As evidenced by your own video at 2:07. You can even read the subtitles saying he is giving the money to the elected governnment of Palestine if you don't understand the Arabic.

WildCat · 1st April 2012, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by joolz

Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palestinian Government elected in Gaza.

Exactly. And that elected government is Hamas, a known and recognized terrorist group.

It's not suddenly OK to give money to terrorists if they manage to get elected to office, or seize it by force.

jiggeryqua · 1st April 2012, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then in what possible sense can opposition be axiomatically good? Your position is incoherent.

In the sense it was offered and which you failed to complete. Opposition is axiomatically good for democracy. Your position is untenable.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Furthermore, and more importantly, you have already conceded the essential point by this statement. If some elements of some opposing positions might be fairly assessed as being not-good for a particular democratic country, then it is obviously possible that George Galloway's positions may be fairly assessed as being not-good for the UK.

Yes...and opposition remains axiomatically good for democracy, while not necessarily, in any particular instance, being wholly good for the democratic country. Round and round we go. No wonder you have so many posts if you spend so many going over and over the same mistake in a stunningly tenacious refusal to back down.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

One wonders what "democracy itself" even is, if it enjoys benefits from things which actual democratic countries suffer from. One also wonders why we should care about the benefit to an abstraction when harm is done to real people.

Have you tried googling 'democracy'? dictionary.com is a good basic resource, but you'll probably want to read some scholarly articles too, to get a fuller picture.

Of course, you don't have to care about democracy at all. Nobody said you should. Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs.

Soapy Sam · 1st April 2012, 04:49 PM

If we are going to deny that a terrorist organisation can become an elected government, we may find ourselves denying the legitimacy of a number of nations.
Among them, Israel and the United States of America.

Like it or not, Hamas is the government of Palestine and we got the ConDems.

Not sure who got the worse deal, frankly.

WildCat · 1st April 2012, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

If we are going to deny that a terrorist organisation can become an elected government, we may find ourselves denying the legitimacy of a number of nations.
Among them, Israel and the United States of America.

Like it or not, Hamas is the government of Palestine and we got the ConDems.

Not sure who got the worse deal, frankly.

Like it or not, Hamas is a known and recognized terrorist group and Galloway handed them sacks of cash.

Ziggurat · 1st April 2012, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Have you tried googling 'democracy'? dictionary.com is a good basic resource, but you'll probably want to read some scholarly articles too, to get a fuller picture.

That's a dodge. What is "democracy itself"? The dictionary will tell me what a democracy is, and we've established that opposition can be bad for actual democracies. Neither the dictionary nor Google will tell me what you mean by "democracy itself". Perhaps you mean some Platonic form, but such forms (to the extent that we take them to exist at all) are unaffected by specific events. You obviously mean something other than actual democracies, but something which can be effected by real-world events. So again I ask: what is this thing you refer to as "democracy itself"? Because you certainly aren't using a dictionary definition.

Quote:

Of course, you don't have to care about democracy at all.

I care about actual democracies (something you seem indifferent to). I have no idea what you even mean by "democracy itself", so logically I'm not capable of caring about whatever it is.

Quote:

Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs.

You mean to propose and vote on legislation to help run the country, with a particular view to representing the interests of their constituents? Why, wherever did I get that idea?

Toontown · 1st April 2012, 08:39 PM

Opposition was certainly good for the Wiemar Republic...er...

Well, not so much, actually, but it's collapse didn't lead to a world war or anything...er...

angrysoba · 2nd April 2012, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

Opposition was certainly good for the Wiemar Republic...er...

Well, not so much, actually, but it's collapse didn't lead to a world war or anything...er...

Well, a world war actually led to the Weimar Republic which was never really a very stable democracy from the beginning. It started out with extreme factions variously trying to take over power and having to be brutally put down by paramilitary groups. I don't think the UK is anything like in the state the Weimar Republic was in.

angrysoba · 2nd April 2012, 12:32 AM

Galloway and Ishmail Haniyeh:

Darat · 2nd April 2012, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Are you two not paying any attention?

Saw that, as I said have you any evidence that he has funded a terrorist organisation, which is of course very much illegal in the UK.

andyandy · 2nd April 2012, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Exactly. And that elected government is Hamas, a known and recognized terrorist group.

It's not suddenly OK to give money to terrorists if they manage to get elected to office, or seize it by force.

Just as an aside, what definition of terrorism are you using? Because if elected/non elected governments can be called terrorists then it suddenly becomes quite difficult to differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist.

America gives sack loads of cash to autocratic and repressive rulers with appalling human rights records all across the globe - what's the difference here?

Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = good (when it's America)

Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = bad (when it's not) ?

JihadJane · 2nd April 2012, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

Just as an aside, what definition of terrorism are you using? Because if elected/non elected governments can be called terrorists then it suddenly becomes quite difficult to differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist.

America gives sack loads of cash to autocratic and repressive rulers with appalling human rights records all across the globe - what's the difference here?

Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = good (when it's America)

Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = bad (when it's not) ?

Bad when it's the bogieman.

Small Town Jesus · 2nd April 2012, 04:34 AM

Did any of the Americans who gave money to the IRA ever suffer any repercussions for their funding of a terrorist organisation?

bigjelmapro · 2nd April 2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Saw that, as I said have you any evidence that he has funded a terrorist organisation, which is of course very much illegal in the UK.

British MP George Galloway Defies International Sanctions against Hamas and Compares Tony Blair to Caligula's Horse

Quote:

Al-Jazeera TV, March 9, 2009
...
But I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors – Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan – are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics. The government of Palestine is the best people where this money is needed. We are giving this money now to the government of Palestine. If I could, I would give them 10 times, 100 times more. We are against this siege. We are opposing this siege. We are breaking this siege. We are breaking this siege.
...

His own admission is not enough? The UK, strangely enough, doesn't list Hamas on their List of Designated Terrorist Organizations. On that same note though, Galloway should have been blocked entry to the US as Canada did. But it didn't when it definitely should have.

What more evidence is required according to you?

angrysoba · 2nd April 2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Small Town Jesus

Did any of the Americans who gave money to the IRA ever suffer any repercussions for their funding of a terrorist organisation?

I think there was some story about MacDonald's giving lots of money to the IRA. But it turned out to be the IRS.

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro

The UK, strangely enough, doesn't list Hamas on their List of Designated Terrorist Organizations. On that same note though, Galloway should have been blocked entry to the US as Canada did. But it didn't when it definitely should have.

Galloway went to the US to testify to the Senate in 2005 or 2006 so it is a few years before he was publically handing over wads of money to Hamas.

Oh, and it seems that the IRA are not a designated terrorist group in the US so that might explain why the US didn't prosecute those who funded the Provos.

bigjelmapro · 2nd April 2012, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

Just as an aside, what definition of terrorism are you using? Because if elected/non elected governments can be called terrorists then it suddenly becomes quite difficult to differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist.
...

No need to obfuscate the issue here. If a country designates a certain group, organization, or person as a terrorist group/organization/person, then its their decision.

No difficulty here.

stokes234 · 2nd April 2012, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro

No need to obfuscate the issue here. If a country designates a certain group, organization, or person as a terrorist group/organization/person, then its their decision.

No difficulty here.

Which countries are allowed to do the designating?

zooterkin · 2nd April 2012, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro

British MP George Galloway Defies International Sanctions against Hamas and Compares Tony Blair to Caligula's Horse

His own admission is not enough? The UK, strangely enough, doesn't list Hamas on their List of Designated Terrorist Organizations. On that same note though, Galloway should have been blocked entry to the US as Canada did. But it didn't when it definitely should have.

What more evidence is required according to you?

Well, you were supposed to show that it was a terrorist organisation that the money was given to, but you seem to have shown the opposite.

andyandy · 2nd April 2012, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro

No need to obfuscate the issue here. If a country designates a certain group, organization, or person as a terrorist group/organization/person, then its their decision.

No difficulty here.

That's not very satisfactory though is it? The only difference is not tangible or based on any actual definition but simply arbitrary?

If I think that anyone who gave money or support to the murderous thugs of Egypt or Libya or Uzbekistans should be jailed because these are regimes which engaged in torture and killed their own civilians, is my definition any different than that you want to apply?

zooterkin · 2nd April 2012, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think there was some story about MacDonald's giving lots of money to the IRA. But it turned out to be the IRS.

I believe the payslips referred to an IRA, which is an Individual Retirement Account, a type of pension plan.

That's a red herring, anyway, since it's pretty well uncontested that the IRA did receive funds from American contributors, something which I believed dried up somewhat after 11/9/2001 when the effects of terrorism on home soil may have caused a rethink.

Quote:

Oh, and it seems that the IRA are not a designated terrorist group in the US so that might explain why the US didn't prosecute those who funded the Provos.

You might want to check that; they might not be on the list now, but they certainly were in the past. The Provisional IRA officially ended its armed campaign in 2005. While there seem to be some suggestions that they have not fully disbanded, they are not engaged in an armed struggle.

WildCat · 2nd April 2012, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Saw that, as I said have you any evidence that he has funded a terrorist organisation, which is of course very much illegal in the UK.

What exactly are you contending Darat? That Hamas isn't a terrorist group, or that they magically ceased to be a terrorist group once they won an election in Gaza and seized the rest of the power in Gaza by force?

Virus · 2nd April 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by stokes234

Which countries are allowed to do the designating?

If your government designates an organization as a terrorist group, then you can't give them money.

stokes234 · 2nd April 2012, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Virus

If your government designates an organization as a terrorist group, then you can't give them money.

Looks like the british government hasn't, though.

jiggeryqua · 2nd April 2012, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's a dodge. What is "democracy itself"? The dictionary will tell me what a democracy is, and we've established that opposition can be bad for actual democracies. Neither the dictionary nor Google will tell me what you mean by "democracy itself". Perhaps you mean some Platonic form, but such forms (to the extent that we take them to exist at all) are unaffected by specific events. You obviously mean something other than actual democracies, but something which can be effected by real-world events. So again I ask: what is this thing you refer to as "democracy itself"? Because you certainly aren't using a dictionary definition.

Hmm, I'm sorry you're having difficulty getting your head round some basic concepts. Again, is this real ignorance or a...what's the word? Oh yes, a 'dodge', thanks. Try thinking of 'democracy itself' as the meme of democracy. I think that works. Opposition, all opposition, is essential to the health and replication of the democratic meme. The concept of democracy is supported and spread by opposition. All opposition is axiomatically good for democracy, even while individual acts of opposition may be less than 'good' for an individual democracy. This really isn't difficult, but if you're still having trouble I'll try to simplify it even more.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I care about actual democracies (something you seem indifferent to). I have no idea what you even mean by "democracy itself", so logically I'm not capable of caring about whatever it is.

I am certainly indifferent to actual democracies in the context of this discussion of opposition being axiomatically good for democracy. That you attempt the slur that I am opposed to (or apathetic in regard of) democracy is laughable. Make and defend your points, without the ad homs. That you attempt it when it is clear that I am arguing for healthy democracies while you wish to stifle and silence opposition to government is ludicrous. It's becoming clear that engaging with you is a futile exercise.

Now then...your next point responds to this part of my post:

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You mean to propose and vote on legislation to help run the country, with a particular view to representing the interests of their constituents? Why, wherever did I get that idea?

Well, let's see the exchange that has led to this point...

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

why should George desire to govern?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Because that's the job he got elected to do.

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

No. Simply no, and you should be embarrased to have made that mistake. He got elected as a member of parliament to represent his constituents.

He did not get elected to government, he got elected to parliament. To represent his constituents. It is not a requirement of MPs that they desire to govern, and the opportunity to govern is outside their control. It requires their party to have formed a government and then to select that MP as part of that government.

You're still woefully wrong, however much you wriggle and squirm.

JihadJane · 2nd April 2012, 07:09 AM

'We're sick of the lot of you: Disgusted voters give ALL three 'out of touch' party leaders the worst poll ratings in history'

"Voters are so disgusted with politics that the three main party leaders are collectively the least popular in the history of polling.
A survey yesterday put the negative ratings of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband at the lowest cumulative rating, a staggering -121 per cent.

...

The collective disillusionment with the three main parties was illustrated last week when Respect candidate George Galloway shocked Labour to seize the Bradford West by-election, winning a 56 per cent share of the total vote."

Cleon · 2nd April 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I believe the payslips referred to an IRA, which is an Individual Retirement Account, a type of pension plan.

That's a red herring, anyway, since it's pretty well uncontested that the IRA did receive funds from American contributors, something which I believed dried up somewhat after 11/9/2001 when the effects of terrorism on home soil may have caused a rethink.

It had more to do with the 1997 ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement, I think. At that point, NORAID pretty much just stopped.

Rolfe · 2nd April 2012, 08:09 AM

There is some to-and-fro correspondence on that subject involving Bobby Kennedy which happened after 11-9-01 though.

Rolfe.

Childlike Empress · 2nd April 2012, 08:33 AM

Galloway interviewed on Murdoch's SKY about his victory:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

zooterkin · 2nd April 2012, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Galloway interviewed on Murdoch's SKY about his victory:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I'd need a good reason to watch that; does he say anything interesting or relevant?

Childlike Empress · 2nd April 2012, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I'd need a good reason to watch that; does he say anything interesting or relevant?

He regrets that he doesn't gamble.

Childlike Empress · 2nd April 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

What exactly are you contending Darat? That Hamas isn't a terrorist group, or that they magically ceased to be a terrorist group once they won an election in Gaza and seized the rest of the power in Gaza by force?

It's obvious to everybody including you and your buddies that the prime minister of the elected government of Palestine is not a terrorist organization. You can as well stop pretending.

Ziggurat · 2nd April 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Hmm, I'm sorry you're having difficulty getting your head round some basic concepts. Again, is this real ignorance or a...what's the word? Oh yes, a 'dodge', thanks. Try thinking of 'democracy itself' as the meme of democracy. I think that works. Opposition, all opposition, is essential to the health and replication of the democratic meme.

Obviously false. Some opposition is explicitly non-democratic. Such opposition can indeed undermine the meme of democracy. It has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future. So you are again simply wrong.

Quote:

The concept of democracy is supported and spread by opposition.

A vacuous and meaningless statement. Opposition to what? There are many kinds of opposition, and opposition to democracy frequently hurts democracy - both actual democracies and the meme.

Quote:

All opposition is axiomatically good for democracy, even while individual acts of opposition may be less than 'good' for an individual democracy. This really isn't difficult, but if you're still having trouble I'll try to simplify it even more.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one having the problem here.

Quote:

He did not get elected to government, he got elected to parliament.

Welcome to a difference in common vocabulary. In the US, the legislature is considered part of "government". And that means all of the legislature, even minority parties or even independents. That is the sense in which I meant it.

WildCat · 2nd April 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

It's obvious to everybody including you and your buddies that the prime minister of the elected government of Palestine is not a terrorist organization. You can as well stop pretending.

Who are you talking about, Abbas? That's not who Galloway gave the money to.

Pardalis · 2nd April 2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Galloway and Ishmail Haniyeh:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...9560d06527.jpg

Interesting the map they are holding. Two Palestinian states side by side... I guess it's their version of a two-state solution.

1st April 2012, 03:20 PM	#203
joolz Medusa Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Scotland, Yurp Posts: 1,629	Originally Posted by Virus The evidence that he funded a terrorist organization is that video of him funding a terrorist organization. What video? Link to it here please. I haven't seen any video of him meeting Hamas or any other terrorist organisations or even mentioning giving them money. You can't make vague accusations like that without being called on to prove them, as you've been asked to do already in this thread.
	__________________ The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking

1st April 2012, 03:23 PM	#204
joolz Medusa Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Scotland, Yurp Posts: 1,629	Originally Posted by WildCat He didn't give it to the PA, he gave it to Hamas in Gaza. Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palestinian Government elected in Gaza. ETA: As evidenced by your own video at 2:07. You can even read the subtitles saying he is giving the money to the elected governnment of Palestine if you don't understand the Arabic.
	__________________ The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Stephen Hawking Last edited by joolz; 1st April 2012 at 03:29 PM.

1st April 2012, 03:27 PM	#205
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,201	Originally Posted by JihadJane An "unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for"? Sounds like a perfect description of Brussels. Quote: Wouldn't it be Eurosceptic, anyway? Touché.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st April 2012, 03:28 PM	#206
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,201	Originally Posted by joolz What video? Link to it here please. What is it with people not being able to follow a thread? Originally Posted by joolz Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palastinian Government elected in Gaza. Did their electoral success stop Hamas from being a terrorist organization? Because I missed that memo. So apparently did their foot soldiers.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law Last edited by Ziggurat; 1st April 2012 at 03:30 PM.

1st April 2012, 03:41 PM	#207
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 7,840	Originally Posted by joolz ETA: As evidenced by your own video at 2:07. You can even read the subtitles saying he is giving the money to the elected governnment of Palestine if you don't understand the Arabic.
	__________________ Breaking The Set

1st April 2012, 03:17 PM	#201
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,095	Originally Posted by Darat Not in this thread he hasn't. Still waiting for your evidence. So the video of him giving cash to Hamas is not evidence of him giving cash to Hamas? Pay close attention at 2:30 of the video already provided. Oh well, handwave away Darat.

1st April 2012, 03:18 PM	#202
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,095	Originally Posted by joolz FTFY Correct. He didn't give it to the PA, he gave it to Hamas in Gaza.

1st April 2012, 03:55 PM	#208
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,095	Originally Posted by joolz Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palestinian Government elected in Gaza. Exactly. And that elected government is Hamas, a known and recognized terrorist group. It's not suddenly OK to give money to terrorists if they manage to get elected to office, or seize it by force.

1st April 2012, 04:02 PM	#209
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,935	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Then in what possible sense can opposition be axiomatically good? Your position is incoherent. In the sense it was offered and which you failed to complete. Opposition is axiomatically good for democracy. Your position is untenable. Originally Posted by Ziggurat Furthermore, and more importantly, you have already conceded the essential point by this statement. If some elements of some opposing positions might be fairly assessed as being not-good for a particular democratic country, then it is obviously possible that George Galloway's positions may be fairly assessed as being not-good for the UK. Yes...and opposition remains axiomatically good for democracy, while not necessarily, in any particular instance, being wholly good for the democratic country. Round and round we go. No wonder you have so many posts if you spend so many going over and over the same mistake in a stunningly tenacious refusal to back down. Originally Posted by Ziggurat One wonders what "democracy itself" even is, if it enjoys benefits from things which actual democratic countries suffer from. One also wonders why we should care about the benefit to an abstraction when harm is done to real people. Have you tried googling 'democracy'? dictionary.com is a good basic resource, but you'll probably want to read some scholarly articles too, to get a fuller picture. Of course, you don't have to care about democracy at all. Nobody said you should. Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs.

1st April 2012, 04:49 PM	#210
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	If we are going to deny that a terrorist organisation can become an elected government, we may find ourselves denying the legitimacy of a number of nations. Among them, Israel and the United States of America. Like it or not, Hamas is the government of Palestine and we got the ConDems. Not sure who got the worse deal, frankly.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

1st April 2012, 05:00 PM	#211
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,095	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam If we are going to deny that a terrorist organisation can become an elected government, we may find ourselves denying the legitimacy of a number of nations. Among them, Israel and the United States of America. Like it or not, Hamas is the government of Palestine and we got the ConDems. Not sure who got the worse deal, frankly. Like it or not, Hamas is a known and recognized terrorist group and Galloway handed them sacks of cash.

1st April 2012, 06:26 PM	#212
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,201	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Have you tried googling 'democracy'? dictionary.com is a good basic resource, but you'll probably want to read some scholarly articles too, to get a fuller picture. That's a dodge. What is "democracy itself"? The dictionary will tell me what a democracy is, and we've established that opposition can be bad for actual democracies. Neither the dictionary nor Google will tell me what you mean by "democracy itself". Perhaps you mean some Platonic form, but such forms (to the extent that we take them to exist at all) are unaffected by specific events. You obviously mean something other than actual democracies, but something which can be effected by real-world events. So again I ask: what is this thing you refer to as "democracy itself"? Because you certainly aren't using a dictionary definition. Quote: Of course, you don't have to care about democracy at all. I care about actual democracies (something you seem indifferent to). I have no idea what you even mean by "democracy itself", so logically I'm not capable of caring about whatever it is. Quote: Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs. You mean to propose and vote on legislation to help run the country, with a particular view to representing the interests of their constituents? Why, wherever did I get that idea?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st April 2012, 08:39 PM	#213
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,557	Opposition was certainly good for the Wiemar Republic...er... Well, not so much, actually, but it's collapse didn't lead to a world war or anything...er...
Toontown Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,557	__________________ SEARCH NOW THE SPHERES PROBE THE UNIVERSE SEND BACK WORD WHAT FORCE SO IRRESISTIBLE AS THE WILL OF FREE MEN

2nd April 2012, 12:31 AM	#214
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,563	Originally Posted by Toontown Opposition was certainly good for the Wiemar Republic...er... Well, not so much, actually, but it's collapse didn't lead to a world war or anything...er... Well, a world war actually led to the Weimar Republic which was never really a very stable democracy from the beginning. It started out with extreme factions variously trying to take over power and having to be brutally put down by paramilitary groups. I don't think the UK is anything like in the state the Weimar Republic was in.

2nd April 2012, 12:32 AM	#215
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,563	Galloway and Ishmail Haniyeh:

2nd April 2012, 02:06 AM	#216
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,792	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Are you two not paying any attention? Saw that, as I said have you any evidence that he has funded a terrorist organisation, which is of course very much illegal in the UK.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

2nd April 2012, 02:23 AM	#217
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Originally Posted by WildCat Exactly. And that elected government is Hamas, a known and recognized terrorist group. It's not suddenly OK to give money to terrorists if they manage to get elected to office, or seize it by force. Just as an aside, what definition of terrorism are you using? Because if elected/non elected governments can be called terrorists then it suddenly becomes quite difficult to differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist. America gives sack loads of cash to autocratic and repressive rulers with appalling human rights records all across the globe - what's the difference here? Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = good (when it's America) Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = bad (when it's not) ?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

2nd April 2012, 03:00 AM	#218
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,730	Originally Posted by andyandy Just as an aside, what definition of terrorism are you using? Because if elected/non elected governments can be called terrorists then it suddenly becomes quite difficult to differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist. America gives sack loads of cash to autocratic and repressive rulers with appalling human rights records all across the globe - what's the difference here? Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = good (when it's America) Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = bad (when it's not) ? Bad when it's the bogieman.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

2nd April 2012, 04:34 AM	#219
Small Town Jesus Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2003 Location: London Posts: 270	Did any of the Americans who gave money to the IRA ever suffer any repercussions for their funding of a terrorist organisation?
	__________________ 'Can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all' - Jeff Mangum

2nd April 2012, 04:42 AM	#220
bigjelmapro Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,505	Originally Posted by Darat Saw that, as I said have you any evidence that he has funded a terrorist organisation, which is of course very much illegal in the UK. British MP George Galloway Defies International Sanctions against Hamas and Compares Tony Blair to Caligula's Horse Quote: Al-Jazeera TV, March 9, 2009 ... But I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors – Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan – are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics. The government of Palestine is the best people where this money is needed. We are giving this money now to the government of Palestine. If I could, I would give them 10 times, 100 times more. We are against this siege. We are opposing this siege. We are breaking this siege. We are breaking this siege. ... His own admission is not enough? The UK, strangely enough, doesn't list Hamas on their List of Designated Terrorist Organizations. On that same note though, Galloway should have been blocked entry to the US as Canada did. But it didn't when it definitely should have. What more evidence is required according to you?
bigjelmapro Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,505

2nd April 2012, 04:42 AM	#221
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,563	Originally Posted by Small Town Jesus Did any of the Americans who gave money to the IRA ever suffer any repercussions for their funding of a terrorist organisation? I think there was some story about MacDonald's giving lots of money to the IRA. But it turned out to be the IRS. Originally Posted by bigjelmapro The UK, strangely enough, doesn't list Hamas on their List of Designated Terrorist Organizations. On that same note though, Galloway should have been blocked entry to the US as Canada did. But it didn't when it definitely should have. Galloway went to the US to testify to the Senate in 2005 or 2006 so it is a few years before he was publically handing over wads of money to Hamas. Oh, and it seems that the IRA are not a designated terrorist group in the US so that might explain why the US didn't prosecute those who funded the Provos.
	Last edited by angrysoba; 2nd April 2012 at 04:48 AM.

2nd April 2012, 04:44 AM	#222
bigjelmapro Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,505	Originally Posted by andyandy Just as an aside, what definition of terrorism are you using? Because if elected/non elected governments can be called terrorists then it suddenly becomes quite difficult to differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist. ... No need to obfuscate the issue here. If a country designates a certain group, organization, or person as a terrorist group/organization/person, then its their decision. No difficulty here.
bigjelmapro Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,505

2nd April 2012, 05:02 AM	#223
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by bigjelmapro No need to obfuscate the issue here. If a country designates a certain group, organization, or person as a terrorist group/organization/person, then its their decision. No difficulty here. Which countries are allowed to do the designating?
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

2nd April 2012, 05:03 AM	#224
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,588	Originally Posted by bigjelmapro British MP George Galloway Defies International Sanctions against Hamas and Compares Tony Blair to Caligula's Horse His own admission is not enough? The UK, strangely enough, doesn't list Hamas on their List of Designated Terrorist Organizations. On that same note though, Galloway should have been blocked entry to the US as Canada did. But it didn't when it definitely should have. What more evidence is required according to you? Well, you were supposed to show that it was a terrorist organisation that the money was given to, but you seem to have shown the opposite.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

2nd April 2012, 05:12 AM	#225
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Originally Posted by bigjelmapro No need to obfuscate the issue here. If a country designates a certain group, organization, or person as a terrorist group/organization/person, then its their decision. No difficulty here. That's not very satisfactory though is it? The only difference is not tangible or based on any actual definition but simply arbitrary? If I think that anyone who gave money or support to the murderous thugs of Egypt or Libya or Uzbekistans should be jailed because these are regimes which engaged in torture and killed their own civilians, is my definition any different than that you want to apply?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

2nd April 2012, 05:18 AM	#226
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,588	Originally Posted by angrysoba I think there was some story about MacDonald's giving lots of money to the IRA. But it turned out to be the IRS. I believe the payslips referred to an IRA, which is an Individual Retirement Account, a type of pension plan. That's a red herring, anyway, since it's pretty well uncontested that the IRA did receive funds from American contributors, something which I believed dried up somewhat after 11/9/2001 when the effects of terrorism on home soil may have caused a rethink. Quote: Oh, and it seems that the IRA are not a designated terrorist group in the US so that might explain why the US didn't prosecute those who funded the Provos. You might want to check that; they might not be on the list now, but they certainly were in the past. The Provisional IRA officially ended its armed campaign in 2005. While there seem to be some suggestions that they have not fully disbanded, they are not engaged in an armed struggle.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

2nd April 2012, 05:56 AM	#227
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,095	Originally Posted by Darat Saw that, as I said have you any evidence that he has funded a terrorist organisation, which is of course very much illegal in the UK. What exactly are you contending Darat? That Hamas isn't a terrorist group, or that they magically ceased to be a terrorist group once they won an election in Gaza and seized the rest of the power in Gaza by force?

2nd April 2012, 06:11 AM	#228
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,200	Originally Posted by stokes234 Which countries are allowed to do the designating? If your government designates an organization as a terrorist group, then you can't give them money.
	__________________ "The folks who proclaim their sensitivity, nuanced thinking, therapeutic concern for the tender sensibilities of others, and open-mindedness have always been the most vicious, bigoted, narrow-minded, crude, dogmatic, conformist people on the planet." - Victor Davis Hanson.

2nd April 2012, 06:35 AM	#229
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: UK Posts: 2,295	Originally Posted by Virus If your government designates an organization as a terrorist group, then you can't give them money. Looks like the british government hasn't, though.
	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

2nd April 2012, 06:38 AM	#230
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,935	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That's a dodge. What is "democracy itself"? The dictionary will tell me what a democracy is, and we've established that opposition can be bad for actual democracies. Neither the dictionary nor Google will tell me what you mean by "democracy itself". Perhaps you mean some Platonic form, but such forms (to the extent that we take them to exist at all) are unaffected by specific events. You obviously mean something other than actual democracies, but something which can be effected by real-world events. So again I ask: what is this thing you refer to as "democracy itself"? Because you certainly aren't using a dictionary definition. Hmm, I'm sorry you're having difficulty getting your head round some basic concepts. Again, is this real ignorance or a...what's the word? Oh yes, a 'dodge', thanks. Try thinking of 'democracy itself' as the meme of democracy. I think that works. Opposition, all opposition, is essential to the health and replication of the democratic meme. The concept of democracy is supported and spread by opposition. All opposition is axiomatically good for democracy, even while individual acts of opposition may be less than 'good' for an individual democracy. This really isn't difficult, but if you're still having trouble I'll try to simplify it even more. Originally Posted by Ziggurat I care about actual democracies (something you seem indifferent to). I have no idea what you even mean by "democracy itself", so logically I'm not capable of caring about whatever it is. I am certainly indifferent to actual democracies in the context of this discussion of opposition being axiomatically good for democracy. That you attempt the slur that I am opposed to (or apathetic in regard of) democracy is laughable. Make and defend your points, without the ad homs. That you attempt it when it is clear that I am arguing for healthy democracies while you wish to stifle and silence opposition to government is ludicrous. It's becoming clear that engaging with you is a futile exercise. Now then...your next point responds to this part of my post: Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs. Originally Posted by Ziggurat You mean to propose and vote on legislation to help run the country, with a particular view to representing the interests of their constituents? Why, wherever did I get that idea? Well, let's see the exchange that has led to this point... Originally Posted by jiggeryqua why should George desire to govern? Originally Posted by Ziggurat Because that's the job he got elected to do. Originally Posted by jiggeryqua No. Simply no, and you should be embarrased to have made that mistake. He got elected as a member of parliament to represent his constituents. He did not get elected to government, he got elected to parliament. To represent his constituents. It is not a requirement of MPs that they desire to govern, and the opportunity to govern is outside their control. It requires their party to have formed a government and then to select that MP as part of that government. You're still woefully wrong, however much you wriggle and squirm.

2nd April 2012, 07:09 AM	#231
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,730	'We're sick of the lot of you: Disgusted voters give ALL three 'out of touch' party leaders the worst poll ratings in history' "Voters are so disgusted with politics that the three main party leaders are collectively the least popular in the history of polling. A survey yesterday put the negative ratings of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband at the lowest cumulative rating, a staggering -121 per cent. ... The collective disillusionment with the three main parties was illustrated last week when Respect candidate George Galloway shocked Labour to seize the Bradford West by-election, winning a 56 per cent share of the total vote."
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH Last edited by JihadJane; 2nd April 2012 at 07:21 AM.

2nd April 2012, 07:19 AM	#232
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,532	Originally Posted by zooterkin I believe the payslips referred to an IRA, which is an Individual Retirement Account, a type of pension plan. That's a red herring, anyway, since it's pretty well uncontested that the IRA did receive funds from American contributors, something which I believed dried up somewhat after 11/9/2001 when the effects of terrorism on home soil may have caused a rethink. It had more to do with the 1997 ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement, I think. At that point, NORAID pretty much just stopped.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

2nd April 2012, 08:09 AM	#233
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,336	There is some to-and-fro correspondence on that subject involving Bobby Kennedy which happened after 11-9-01 though. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

2nd April 2012, 08:46 AM	#236
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 7,840	Originally Posted by zooterkin I'd need a good reason to watch that; does he say anything interesting or relevant? He regrets that he doesn't gamble.
	__________________ Breaking The Set

2nd April 2012, 08:49 AM	#237
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 7,840	Originally Posted by WildCat What exactly are you contending Darat? That Hamas isn't a terrorist group, or that they magically ceased to be a terrorist group once they won an election in Gaza and seized the rest of the power in Gaza by force? It's obvious to everybody including you and your buddies that the prime minister of the elected government of Palestine is not a terrorist organization. You can as well stop pretending.
	__________________ Breaking The Set