Moderated Views on George Galloway.

I am really trying to get back to using this thread to recognizing the oratory brilliance and truth telling of George Galloway who is a hero in the political world.

No, you are not. You are continuing with the obssessive and creepy Israel bashing. Something you love to do from the comfort of your home. You are a do nothing. Feigning outrage. Crocodile tears.

Galloway is a proven liar, he is not a truth teller. He is only a hero to those who hate the West.
 
No, you are not. You are continuing with the obssessive and creepy Israel bashing. Something you love to do from the comfort of your home. You are a do nothing. Feigning outrage. Crocodile tears.

Galloway is a proven liar, he is not a truth teller. He is only a hero to those who hate the West.

Well said!
 
Galloway has been found to not have taken a dime.

Slightly misleading statement, there. He may not have over-claimed according to the rules, but he's certainly helped himself from the pot of dimes to the tune of £136,390 in 2007/8. And that is over-and-above his MP's salary.

Edit: his expenses claims are legitimate, but to say he hasn't taken a dime is wrong.
 
Last edited:
And I agree with Galloway on this wholeheartedly. Any 'Western' Troops out there are doing nothing to defend their country and are merely serving a selfish aggressor, while the Afghans are defending their country

Which Afghans are defending their country? What about the AQ guys? The Pakistanis, the Brits, the Americans, the other non Afghans? Western troops out there are doing the bidding of the UN. When you join up you sign up for more than just defending your country.

What about the majority of the Afghans who want rid of the minority Taliban? What about AQ in Pakistan? Who are they defending against? OBL was not defending his country when he decided to attack the US.

AQ and the Taliban stop waging terror and the "aggressors" leave. Problem solved.
 
Galloway is a proven liar, he is not a truth teller. He is only a hero to those who hate the West.


The senate just forget to convict him of anything then, after he made his lengthy testimony?

Or maybe .... what he said was the truth so they had no case?
 
The senate just forget to convict him of anything then, after he made his lengthy testimony?

Or maybe .... what he said was the truth so they had no case?

I dont care what the senate did or did not do. I am from the UK. He has been shown to be a proven liar. Just because he flummoxes some US senators does not mean he is a hero or truth teller. There are plenty of examples of him lying. Especially about what he said to Saddam Hussein.

This is all you have, ignore the evidence he is a habitual liar and focus on one thing where it seems he did not lie.

Truly pathetic.
 
And I agree with Galloway on this wholeheartedly. Any 'Western' Troops out there are doing nothing to defend their country and are merely serving a selfish aggressor, while the Afghans are defending their country

And now the cat is out of the bag, TFT clearly now admits being on the side of Islamic autocrats. The ones who blow up bombs on crowded streets and kill little girls for going to school have not the Afghans' interest in mind.

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79295
Insurgent groups have been responsible for approximately two-thirds of civilian deaths. In the first seven months of 2008, the UN estimates that improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks killed almost 500 civilians. Antigovernment forces routinely violate the laws of war by launching attacks from civilian areas or retreating to such areas, knowingly drawing return fire.

The targeting of individuals associated with the government is also on the rise, from school teachers to human rights defenders, with the United Nations recording over a hundred assassinations in 2008. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the September killing of Afghanistan’s highest-ranking female police officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Malalai Kakar.

[...]

As part of their campaign of terrorizing the civilian population, the Taliban and other insurgent groups continue to target schools, and in particular girls’ schools. According to the Ministry of Education, over one hundred schools were attacked between March and October 2008, with the Afghanistan NGO Security Office recording more than 30 teachers and students killed in the first 10 months of 2008.
Is that a way to fight for one's country? Who exactly are the aggressors here?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,627004,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6744931.stm

... yes, killing schoolgirls is the right way to fight for your country right, TFT?

And are aid workers "aggressors", TFT?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/216017.html
 
Last edited:
Well done richardm, actually adding information about GG of this page of the thread. And yes, it was all legal.

As for all the others irrelivant angry banters, is it proving hard to come up with direct evidence of why you think Galloway is so bad?
 
I am from the UK.


This would explain it; Do you read the Times, The Sun, the News of the World, or the Daily Mail by any chance? Or was it the Daily Telegraph which was the subject of libel action at the hight court won by Galloway many years ago?

Come up with a reason, and not emotive slurs and maybe we can progress.
 
Well done richardm, actually adding information about GG of this page of the thread. And yes, it was all legal.

As for all the others irrelivant angry banters, is it proving hard to come up with direct evidence of why you think Galloway is so bad?

Providing moral support to a terrorist organization in Hamas would be high on the list of repugnant activities.

And, if he raised money for Hamas with his Viva Palestina, as evidence appears to demonstrate, he's in violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, among other anti-terror regulations.
 
Providing moral support to a terrorist organization in Hamas would be high on the list of repugnant activities.


I dont think that he (along with most people) consider Hamas a terrorist organisation. Rather Israel a terrorist state. And he only offers the people there support in times of war and humanitarian crisis, as anyone with morals should do, surely?

And, if he raised money for Hamas with his Viva Palestina, as evidence appears to demonstrate, he's in violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, among other anti-terror regulations.


Is Tony Benn also in "violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism" for him advertising the GAZA appeal number on the BBC?



And presumably all the people that donted money?

Could you equally consider the people who fund Israeli actions to be in "violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism" if they are considered the "terrorist" side of the two?

/de-ja-vu 3 with this post.
 
I dont think that he (along with most people) consider Hamas a terrorist organisation.

Morally bankrupt and ignorant people wouldn't.

However, a cursory review of Hamas's charter exhorting the annihilation of Israel and the murder of Jews, and, Palestinian leaders and clerics articulating same demonstrates terroristic motives. I recommend you familiarize yourself with it. It's readily available.

Rather Israel a terrorist state. And he only offers the people there support in times of war and humanitarian crisis, as anyone with morals should do, surely?

Israel exercising its inherent right to self-defense in response to Arab aggression shouldn't be confused with terrorism. I'm confident even you can grasp this concept.

Could you equally consider the people who fund Israeli actions to be in "violation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism" if they are considered the "terrorist" side of the two?

/de-ja-vu 3 with this post.

Ah, you're betraying my confidence that even you could assimmilate the elementary concept of Israel defending itself against Muslim terrorism.

I'm so jaded.
 
Last edited:
Morally bankrupt and ignorant people wouldn't.

However, a cursory review of Hamas's charter exhorting the annihilation of Israel and the murder of Jews, and, Palestinian leaders and clerics articulating same constitutes terrorism.


Evidence? The last charter I saw had a two state solution. And no anti-semitism, only anti-zionism.

Israel exercising its inherent right to self-defense in response to Arab aggression shouldn't be confused with terrorism. I'm confident even you can grasp this concept.


In seven years 8 Israelis were killed by rockets, in that same time 5000 Palestinians were killed.



Not what I would call self defense.

Ah, you're betraying my confidence that even you could assimmilate the elementary concept of Israel defending itself against Muslim terrorism.


Ah, you're betraying my confidence that even you could assimmilate the elementary concept of Palestine defending itself against Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
 
Last edited:
In seven years 8 Israelis were killed by rockets, in that same time 5000 Palestinians were killed.
By that logic the US wasn't defending itself in WWII, since many more Japanese were killed than Americans.

But carry on with your delusions that Hamas is not a terrorist group fighting for a theocratic thugocracy but rather a peace-loving band of freedon fighters.

eta: btw , still waiting for you to explain your bizarre post about Galloway being tried in the US Senate...
 
In seven years 8 Israelis were killed by rockets, in that same time 5000 Palestinians were killed.

In the four year al-Aqsa intifada, 1,000 Israelis were killed, so, your figures are off.

Palestinians were killed in defensive Israeli military operations, though, your figures are highly suspect given your lack of knowledge, in general. Israelis were killed in offensive Hamas attacks.

Try to wrap your mind around the distinction.
 

Back
Top Bottom