Moderated Views on George Galloway.

Wow. You still can't admit that he lied. You know, that's even more telling about you than it is about him.

The one thing I can't understand is why you're so willing to shoot your own credibility in the foot in order to defend him on this point.


OK, to keep you happy for a while I'll say that George make a huge mistake about that one and I did too when I agreed with him.

When I look into his actual exact claims and deduce the reasons for him saying so, I will do. And that statement may have the be retratcted or not :)
 
HE's a pompous worthless jackass who rode on the coattails of a small party with a powerful message so he could get his corpulent ass back in the limelight. He's a total arse and he has one of the worst records of attendance in the Houses of Parliament.

He went to do Big Brother while serving as an MP for gods sake!
 
Well, While I dont agree with his proclamation that no-one died there, I have found considerable evidence to support an gross exaggeration of events, as Mr Galloway implies by what he says. From the mouth of the very journalist there that took those iconic pictures and video we all saw relentlessly, an article in CBS:

There Was No "Tiananmen Square Massacre"
This story was filed by CBS News correspondent Richard Roth, who was detained by Chinese authorities for 20 hours on June 4, 1989, while covering the Tiananmen Square "crackdown".

For years now (certainly by the time of the 10th anniversary of Tiananmen) scholars — and many journalists — have been describing it as a weekend massacre, a massacre in Beijing, the "Beijing massacre" or the "crackdown" in Tiananmen, but not a "Tiananmen Square massacre."

"Tiananmen massacre" is a phrase that still has currency, but it does tend to be used a lot less now in careful accounts of what happened there.

Behind this is the weight of eyewitness accounts, de-classified Western government reports, and historians' work that supports the story of a brief period of negotiation between the army and some student hold-outs (there weren't all that many left in the square by then) when troops began entering the square in force just before dawn -- silencing the public address system loudspeakers with a volley of gunfire. The last group of protestors filed out of the square to the south soon after.

I was being held captive by Chinese army troops on the south portico of the Great Hall of the People (which forms one of the borders of the Square) when that round of gunfire occurred.

I could hear it but I could not see into the Square. Around forty minutes later, Derek Williams and I were driven in a pair of army jeeps right through the square, almost along its full length, and into the Forbidden City.

Dawn was just breaking. There were hundreds of troops in the square, many sitting cross-legged on the pavement in long curving ranks, some cleaning up debris. There were some tanks and armored personnel carriers. But we saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a "massacre" had recently occurred in that place.

Later, being debriefed on-air by Dan Rather, I recall making an effort to avoid using the word "massacre." I referred to an "assault" and an "attack."

I reported what I saw; I said I hadn't seen any bodies. Admittedly, I've never made a point of trying to contradict a colleague on the air; I've simply stuck to my own story, because I've believed it's true.

Some have found it uncomfortable that all this conforms with what the Chinese government has always claimed, perhaps with a bit of sophistry: that there was no "massacre in Tiananmen Square."

But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/31/sunday/main5051952.shtml
Even today, no one knows how many died as a result of the crackdown.

Jeff Widener (left), then working for the Associated Press, took pictures through the night and came back the next day to snap one more image from a balcony.

"This is a nice compressed shot of tanks coming," he recalled, "and this guy walks out." Widener thought, "'This guy is going to screw up my picture.'"

The result: An image now known simply as the Tank Man.

"Why do you think that image resonated around the world?" Petersen asked.

"Well, it's David and Goliath," Widener said.
 
He's a total arse and he has one of the worst records of attendance in the Houses of Parliament.


Yeah he didn't exactly rub along well with all the MPs, specially the sort who claim illegal money and were responsoble for the UK's foreign policy. He called most MP's in the houses of paliament a largely spineless supine bunch. I think that supine is a very good description.

He went to do Big Brother while serving as an MP for gods sake!


That was a mistake in my opinion, but he had balls for doing it eh? Cant think of other politicians strong and confident enough to do that live for 24 hours a day.
 
What's the issue here? Invading the Middle East was corrupt, ill advised, and is still a never ending disaster. Galloway was dead on about the corrupt part before anyone else wanted to even consider it. He was smeared for messing with certain peoples agendas. Plain and simple.
 
http://www.sinomania.com/CHINANEWS/tiananmen_perspective.html
Other than the official Chinese information, no reliable evidence of deaths has ever been produced by anyone on either side of the issue. As Jay Mathews, former Beijing bureau chief for the Washington Post has said, there is no evidence anyone died in Tiananmen Square. Yet no journalist or politician outside China has ever attempted to correct the record. Instead the myth that thousands of unarmed people were deliberately mowed down by their own government is spread as part of an unacknowledged campaign of misinformation led by sinophobic press and politicians.
 
I'll refrain from saying anything about George Galloway because it would be nearly impossible to do so without breaking my membership agreement.
 
Yeah he didn't exactly rub along well with all the MPs, specially the sort who claim illegal money and were responsoble for the UK's foreign policy. He called most MP's in the houses of paliament a largely spineless supine bunch. I think that supine is a very good description.

It's not about how you rub along well with other MPs. It is whether you are there to represent your constituency by voting and speaking. And it is about the amount of time you work outside of Parliament on representing your constituency.
 
That was a mistake in my opinion, but he had balls for doing it eh? Cant think of other politicians strong and confident enough to do that live for 24 hours a day.
No.

He ran away from his responsibilities to be a media whore on a show for low grade morons.

Any politician who abandons their constituents and their job MAKING OUR LAWS to dick around in a red leotard should be sacked.

He's worthless.
 
I'll refrain from saying anything about George Galloway because it would be nearly impossible to do so without breaking my membership agreement.


Are you gay by any chance? If so, I understand why you want to refrain from saying anything about George Galloway...
 
Any politician who abandons their constituents and their job MAKING OUR LAWS to dick around in a red leotard should be sacked.


I think that having fun and making a tit out of himself in a red leotard is a far worse offense than many MP's comitted recently in the expenses scandal. Some of them broke the law.

It was, however, a good PR move :) Certainly got him in the headlines.
 
Its made him a laughing stock around the world. People who had never heard of him before or since were laughing at him.
 
It's not about how you rub along well with other MPs. It is whether you are there to represent your constituency by voting and speaking. And it is about the amount of time you work outside of Parliament on representing your constituency.


It should be quite apparent that George lost quite a lot of faith in the parliamentary system, and only voted when he needed to, or when he knew it would count for anything. He was elected by the people. And I saw no public uproar during his time.
 
Its made him a laughing stock around the world. People who had never heard of him before or since were laughing at him.


Laughter is the best medicine.

He doesn't care people are laughing. If anything he'll be glad to have provided entertainment. :p
 
What's the issue here? Invading the Middle East was corrupt, ill advised, and is still a never ending disaster. Galloway was dead on about the corrupt part before anyone else wanted to even consider it. He was smeared for messing with certain peoples agendas. Plain and simple.


Spot on the money mate :D
 
No.

He ran away from his responsibilities to be a media whore on a show for low grade morons.

Any politician who abandons their constituents and their job MAKING OUR LAWS to dick around in a red leotard should be sacked.

He's worthless.

Spot on. He is a disgrace.
 
It should be quite apparent that George lost quite a lot of faith in the parliamentary system,

His statements of support for the Soviet Union and Saddam's regime suggest that he never had much time for democracy anyway.

He was elected by the people.

A fact he doesn't seem to care about.

And I saw no public uproar during his time.

Then I don't think you follow the news very closely because that has been mentioned many times.
 
He's not giving money to Hamas really, all the money went to the people in Gaza through Hamas, as he clearly outlines here:

How's he know that?


the shows in Israel are a huge deal, without them there would be hardly any motivation for people to join the army on patriotic or religous grounds, and a lot less people would see any reason to fight their neighbours.

*sigh*

What happened here is that I brought up an example of Hamas child abuse, and you deflected by saying 'Well what about those TV shows in Israel eh?'. This is a desperately cowardly diversion, and only one you can get out of if you conclude that the shows in Israel are no big deal.

As you conclude that they are a huge deal, are we right in assuming you thus consider the Hamas TV shows a huge deal too, and that "without them there would be hardly any motivation for people to join the army on patriotic or religous grounds, and a lot less people would see any reason to fight their neighbours?"
 
Last edited:
Spot on. He is a disgrace.


Okay, your opinion.

Is there any evidence that his constituents were really annoyed with him getting all the coverage? I think if anything it may have raised awareness of him more. Even though I dont think it was a good idea for him to do it, for the reasons MarkCorrigan said.
 

Back
Top Bottom