Moderated Views on George Galloway.

scissorhands said:
Since he was rightly kicked out of that party
Click to expand...


:dl:

The reasons for kicking him out were absolutely hilarious, considering the recent MP expenses scandal. Have you seen the speech he made when he was kicked out? As he said in his brilliantly orated speech:

Querying the claim that he should have checked the exact origins of all donations made to his appeal, Galloway noted, “Being lectured by the current House of Commons on the funding of political campaigns is like being accused of having bad taste by Donald Trump or being accused of slouching by the hunchback of Notre Dame. This House stands in utter ill repute on the question of the funding of political campaigns.”
Click to expand...


Galloway thrown out of Parliament Part 1 of 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xetq3b7fheY

And how utterly correct he turned out to be a few years later :D
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Okay I'll take a step back from this for a second. I didn't really research it before I wrote that. I will look into his views on this in more detail in a bit to see exactly what he is saying.

So far I think that the point he is making is that although there were definately some deaths that occured there, the death toll has been exagerated by western reports trying to tarnish communist china. His question was where are the images of the alleged hundreds of dead?
Click to expand...

No, Zeuzzz. Let me quote his words: "It is a remarkable thing that something that we've been told for twenty years was a massacre, that not a single photograph of a single dead person has been adduced."

So that's not a question, it's a claim, and it's not about how many dead people there were, it's about whether there were any at all. And his claim is a transparent lie.

Your statement that you "didn't really research it before I wrote that" is an understatement, to put it charitably.

Why given the worlds media were there is there not more evidence?
Click to expand...

That's not his claim at all. His claim is that there's no evidence, when that's just not the case.

I dont know. There might be. And he might be wrong about this. Will get googling.
Click to expand...

He might be wrong? Damn, Zeuzzz, watch the video: the evidence that he's wrong is right there, in the video itself.

Or were you so foolish as to comment upon it without even watching it? If so, I would suggest you stop posting while drunk.
 
Zeuzzz said:
:dl:

The reasons for kicking him out were absolutely hilarious, considering the recent MP expenses scandal. Have you seen the speech he made when he was kicked out? As he said in his brilliantly orated speech:




Galloway thrown out of Parliament Part 1 of 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xetq3b7fheY

And how utterly correct he turned out to be a few years later :D
Click to expand...

You seem confused, as that had nothing to do with his expulsion from the Labour party.
He was expelled from the Labour party for bringing it into disrepute in 2003.
Maybe you need to stop posting for a bit while you sober up.
 
Zeuzzz said:
LOL, I remember that :D What an idiot for going on that show. Makes me cringe watching that, but lets remember that this was for a task in big brother that he had to do, he didn't just suddenly start doing this!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately he had no such excuse for his other despicable behaviour on the program.
 
Ziggurat said:
So that's not a question, it's a claim, and it's not about how many dead people there were, it's about whether there were any at all. And his claim is a transparent lie.
Click to expand...


It is a lie, as there certainly were many people that died that day. He hosts a radio show in the UK which is the most widely listened to radio station in the UK, he's on air constantly, he's bound to make the odd mistake or say something wrong. I think he meant not to dispute that some people did die, just the sensationalised reports and high death toll that (he believes) to this day have never been proven.

That's not his claim at all. His claim is that there's no evidence, when that's just not the case.
Click to expand...


But no evidence of what is the question. I think he means no evidence for the high death toll often attributed to it, not that there were no deaths at all.

And I would watch out for videos from that youtube user, he deliberately twists galloways words and takes them out of context all the time. He instantly gives his videos five stars then locks other votes, he bans discussion about his videos apart from people who agree with him, and is just a very dishonest youtube uploader in general.

I think that his main reason for these rather ill advised comments is that far worse attrocities have been committed since this incident, yet due to the wests attempts to tarnish Chinas image (due to the threat they feel from a) their communist system and b) their growing financial strength) the story has been covered far more than it should have and exagerrated over the years.

How much TV time has been given to the tragedy of the USS Liberty incident for example? I cant remember once. I'm gonna stop posting now till tomorrow. Will enjoy continuing this then. :)
 
scissorhands said:
He was expelled from the Labour party for bringing it into disrepute in 2003.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, Tony got rid of him after he became vice president of StWC and made some comments that didn't go down very well about the war. Guess theres no room for anti-war people that preach peace in the labour govenment, eh?

I did get this muddled with his expulsion from parliament, which was an equally obserd affair.
 
He hosts a radio show in the UK which is the most widely listened to radio station in the UK
Click to expand...

Talksport is the most widely listened to radio station in the UK?
Really?
 
Zeuzzz said:
I think he meant not to dispute that some people did die, just the sensationalised reports and high death toll that (he believes) to this day have never been proven.
Click to expand...

And yet, that's not what he did. Your attempts to spin his words are rather pathetic.

But no evidence of what is the question. I think he means no evidence for the high death toll often attributed to it, not that there were no deaths at all.
Click to expand...

No. He said there's no evidence of a single dead person. And I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was not simply that the death toll was exagerated (because you don't need zero dead bodies to make that claim), but of a conspiracy to manufacture a massacre when none occurred. Hence is rather deliberate emphasis of not a single photo of even a single dead body.

How much TV time has been given to the tragedy of the USS Liberty incident for example? I cant remember once.
Click to expand...

How sadly predictable that you drop back to attacking Israel. Keep on licking Galloway's boot.
 
Ziggurat said:
How sadly predictable that you drop back to attacking Israel. Keep on licking Galloway's boot.
Click to expand...


Its just a relevant story, as the point is that the china incident has been played again and again, yet far worse attrocities have happened. Sorry if it offends you bringing it up. And he never attacks the Israelis btw, the Israeli govenment and Zionists, maybe.

Lets use another example to keep you happy then, hows about the guinea protests, with an estimated death toll of 157? How often do we hear about that in comparison? There have been far worse, thats a rather tepid example compared to some genocides and military events that have happened since.

I say again:

Zeuzzz said:
I think that his main reason for these rather ill advised comments is that far worse attrocities have been committed since this incident, yet due to the wests attempts to tarnish Chinas image (due to the threat they feel from a) their communist system and b) their growing financial strength) the story has been covered far more than it should have and exagerrated over the years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there something about some item of ladies' underwear, round about when the "Gorgeous George" quips started?

Forgive me, but the sleazy details now escape me.

Rolfe.
 
Zeuzzz said:
He hosts a radio show in the UK which is the most widely listened to radio station in the UK, he's on air constantly, he's bound to make the odd mistake or say something wrong.
Click to expand...

Thats a false claim.
 
It's complete nonsense. The Wiki list shows it not only well down the list, its listening figures are way behind the leaders.

Deeply as I admire and enjoy Radio 3, I wouldn't call it wildly popular. I note that TalkSport just pips Radio 3 by a whisker.

Rolfe.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Oh yes, Tony got rid of him after he became vice president of StWC and made some comments that didn't go down very well about the war. Guess theres no room for anti-war people that preach peace in the labour govenment, eh?

I did get this muddled with his expulsion from parliament, which was an equally obserd affair.
Click to expand...

Preach peace? false claim again.

The charges faced by Mr Galloway were understood to be that:

he incited Arabs to fight British troops
he incited British troops to defy orders
he incited Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs
he threatened to stand against Labour
he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
Preach peace? false claim again.
Click to expand...


That is his goal, peace. Thus his strong anti-war ideology. So not false at all.

And that list is wrong, "he incited Arabs to fight British troops" is rubbish. He said that any country getting invaded by enemy forces has a right to defend themselves, which I dont think many people can disagree with. The afghans have defended their land from foreign armies for centuries, sucessfully, and will continue to do so. Whatever the afghani people or taliban have to do with 9/11 (err, nothing!) or Al-queda and Bin Laden (err, nothing!), the reason to target the entire country after 9/11 remains as illusive as ever. The war can not be won.
 
Last edited:
I admit that talksport is not the most widely listened to radio station in the UK, but is infact merely one of the most widely listened to radio stations in the UK. Happy now? :rolleyes:

Considering that whether or not the radio station was popular or not was largely irrelivant to my point about him being on the air very frequently (irrespective of numbers of listeners) I think we can put all comments about that in the pedantry bin, whilst I have remained honest about my mistake, significant or not.

So whats so bad about galloway again? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom