Moderated Views on George Galloway.
- Thread starter Zeuzzz
- Start date
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
Yes reminding us that no matter who the people are, they are still human beings. No matter what sick doctrine they have been forced to adhere to, they are victims of this; just as much as their opponents are.
Its you thats dehumanizing people by labelling them terorrists that should be killed. He wishes no such thing to any people.
And dont get me started on Isreals record of "oppression, torture, muder, and genocide", we might even get to the point where we compare the statistics of Hamas and Israel directly. And then we can decide who's the 'terrorist' organization of the two
Galloway was giving money to the suffering palestinians as DONATED by the public around the world and in the UK. It was an aid convoy.
Out of context bullcrap, uploaded by youtube galloway smearer GeorgeGalloway or "gallowaywatch" that lies, twists and distorts every quote into making them seem so much worse than they are. Some fo his videos are truly terrible. Yes, george is giving palestinian people money and aid. And he's not ashamed of it. Big Deal? HAlf of the things n that clip are outright lies and out of context. Quote some if you feel the need.
I think this is a lie. Evidence? If they want to wipe the racist ideology of Zionism off the map, maybe.
So you STILL cant find one single bit of evidence that george supports these views, or is anti-semitic?
Keep up the hand-waving
He has a funny way of showing it, giving money to Hamas and all...
On humanitarian grounds, or people would have died.
Last edited:
IDB87
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,022
A dog with rabies is still a dog with rabies. Chances are it's still a dog, but it is now rabid and has to be put down. This doctrine you so lightly excuse has made the militias of Hamas rabid and, if not kept in check politcally (as their leaders refuse to do) must be put down militarily. For the good of themselves and others.
Any group that enables and encourages their followers to blow themselves up on a crowded bus is a terrorist. It requires no outside dehumanization.
This tu quoque argument is beyond boring now. Do you bring anything else to this discussion?
Yet he did not give it to any independant Palestinian charity. Instead, he gave it directly to a recongized terrorist group renown for taking aid meant for the Palestinains as their own, and using it to arm their militias. If the thought was noble, the outcome was not.
Examples of Galloway quotes/statements taken out of context? Last I saw, these were actual quotes/statements made by Galloway himself, completley in context and unedited. It is your job to provie quotes taken out of context, and lies made by the YT user.
That's bad, but he's still a liar and terrorist supporter!
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
To clarify: They must be murdered because they are not in check with Israels policies?
Any army leutenant that commands a stealth bomber to drop a bomb in a civilian area without thought of what humanitarian catastrophe's it might cause is also a terrorist then. There is no moral difference. Both kill innocent people. And one side kills a damn lot more than the other.
It is not the hardware of military weapons that frightens me, because a gun cant go off. It is the hatred that makes people want to use them; that is the fuel of war.
Yes, cakes, a picnic, and hope it will all work out.
Many palestinians that have been adequately funded and supported by Hamas would strongly disagree, they are the govenment, and they do run quite adequate civilian support. Or else there would be rioting and much anger against them. But we dont see that do we?
I will in due course, but his misrepresentations and smears are worth a whole page of this thread in itself.
As for what galloway said, I'll try to put it in its correct context, if you would be so kind as so point out the phrases that bother you so much.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
What a perfect distillation of the moral vacuity of left-wing cant.
Galloway isn't opposed to killing. He just doesn't want the west to do any of it. He isn't anti-war, he's just on the other side.
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,754
His support for Hamas is rather proof enough. Oh sure, he'll never say he isn't opposed to killing, but the only killings he really stands up against are those done by the west. Just like you rationalize away Galloway's support for terrorist organizations, he will rationalize away the killings committed by those terrorist organizations.
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
I think you are mistaking the side of the resistance for the agressor. Galloway is always on about the pointless army members that have gotten killed by people "against the west" as you say, frequently talks about them and how they might improve this death toll so its not so bad.
IDB87
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,022
What policies is Hamas not in check with? The idea that a nation should live without the threat of suicide bombings and constant (and deliberate) attacks on its civilians at the hands of religious fundamentalists? Maybe I missed something, and perhaps you could clairfy just what you mean by Israel's policies.
One can justify certain types of military action, such as the situation you made above. One cannot, however, justify nihilism in the form of suicide bombings. You are welcomed to make the connection though.
Applicable to Hamas-Israel.
Would those Palestinians happen to be Hamas members? How about the Fatah members who live(d) in Gaza? How about the Christians who live in Gaza, the women, etc. Hamas brutalizes their opponents, intimidates those who may speak up, and murder those who do.
Did you miss the news reports of Hamas members murdering Fatah members in the streets, throwing them off building tops, shooting them in hospital beds, etc?
No, you must take what statements of Galloways were taken out of context. It is our contention that all videos of Galloway are in context and unedited. Prove they are not.
IDB87
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,022
As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".
1:50-on
IchabodPlain
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,252
You're sidestepping the issue. Technically, the US sold Saddam weapons in the form of unarmed helicopters and dual use materials (such as chlorine), and technically US found WMD's in Iraq after the invasion. If you're going going to claim Galloway's statements as true based on a technicality, regardless of how misleading and deceptive the statements may be, please be consistent.
Also, I can't find anything (other than the Galloway quote) which says Rumsfeld sold guns to Saddam - Linky?
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
The problem with the "Anti Zionists" is that it is sort of irrevelent whether the founding of Israel back in 1948 was a good idea, a bad idea, or something inbetween. As of 2009, there are Five Million Jews in Israel, and they ain't voluntary going anyplace else. That Cow had definently left the barn.
What has to happen for the Palestinians to "get their land back" is painfully obvious, but the Anti Zionist don't want to admit it.
What has to happen for the Palestinians to "get their land back" is painfully obvious, but the Anti Zionist don't want to admit it.
I agree, at this point in time the history is whether it was a god or bad idea is irrelevant, fact is it's a done deal and the only way there's going to be peace is for the Palestinians to lay down their weapons, eliminate the state of belligerence, and get on with their lives.
There is a way for the Palestinians to "get their land back" in the view on the anti-Zionists, and that's the one state solution accompanied by the right of return. I find this approach rather curious as in my experience most anti-Zionists tend to stand behind separatist movements, like the Tamils in their quest for a place to call their own.
I'm beginning to think that the anti-Zionist left actually enjoys this fight as it gives them a vicarious outlet for waging their anti-western, anti-capitalist "war" with other people's lives from the safety of their comfy chairs.
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".
I think he once said he would be happy to see Osama bin Laden strung up; I'm trying to see if I can find a source.
You mean the genocide and expulsion of of the Jews? Yes, of course the "anti-zionists" support that, but it's even worse than what you think.
The "anti-zionists" support of the Palestinians is limited strictly to their interest in seeing how their plight can be used to advance the noble goal of a second holocaust. They totally ignore the plight of the Palestinians caused by their own leaders, or by the Arab world, because that isn't something that advances that goal.
We saw this (to give one example of many) during the heyday of the Oslo "peace" process: whenever some city was under Israeli control, we'd here moans and cries from the "anti-zionists" about how the IDF is violating human rights there. The moment it was passed to Palestinian control -- that is, put under the thumb of Arafat's or Hamas' thugs -- it is as if a curtain descended on the place, as the "anti-zionists" instantly, indeed literally overnight (the night control passed from the IDF to the PA) lost all interest in the welfare of the population there.
If tomorrow Israel is destroyed, and the Palestinians "get their land back", it will be the end of the "anti-zionists" interest in them. Having served their purpose of killing the Jewish scum (the only goal the "anti-zionists" really care about), they will be discarded to live out their lives under the thumb of someone like Hamas or worse, and nothing -- including mass execution of anybody who opposes the regime (as Hamas did to PLO supporters, for example) -- will matter any more to the "anti-zionist" human right beacons (wellllllllll, human rights of non-jews... then again, most "anti-zionists" don't seem to consider jews human).
Heck, if the newly liberated (read: judenfrei) Palestine will the next day be invaded by Jordan, Egypt, and Syria and parceled up again into fiefdoms between these competing Arab countries, you won't hear a word -- a peep -- from these folks over the "occupation of Palestine". There wasn't any when Egypt and Jordan did just that between 1948 and 1967.
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
Yeah, not bothering with some of the poorest people in the UK is fine as long as they don't repeatedly vote you back in.
And he doesn't even give a **** about running for re-election there, given that he is running for another constituency in 2010. It seems like he is more interested in rocking the boat than sticking with the people who gave him the chance to represent them.
Galloway represents one person: Galloway.
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
As the very act that he repudiates the most, I dare you to back up that he "isn't opposed to killing".
Supporting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million civilians.
No surprise you repeatedly avoid this fact.
I don't think the anti-Zionists are concerned with "killing the Jewish scum" but instead seeing the Israelis as white people who invaded and colonised the lands of brown people with the help of the white power structure.
Their goal is to return the historical lands to these brown people and whatever happens to these brown people at the hands of other brown people is a case for determining just how much influence the white power structure exerted on those dominating brown people to make them behave like that.
Criticizing groups of brown people simply because they're evil is racist and if it weren't for those meddling white people the world would be,,I dunno, some sort of paradise or something.
Hmmmmmmm, you've got a point, Stout, which is quite similar to mine, though not the same.
We both would agree, I suppose, that "anti-Zionists" do not see brown people as fully human.
They are never responsible for anything they do, for example -- they are always merely passively reacting (by suicide bombing, for example) to actions by the real actors in this world, the white people.
The moment the little brown (or black) people are not linked to some white guy -- a long as the bad guy is not white -- who cares? It's not as if what black or brown people do to each other matters.
Brown and black people are just spear-holders in a walk-on role in the great passion play. All speaking roles -- whether as the hero (the "anti-zionist") or the villan (the jews) -- are reserved for whites.
We both would agree, I suppose, that "anti-Zionists" do not see brown people as fully human.
They are never responsible for anything they do, for example -- they are always merely passively reacting (by suicide bombing, for example) to actions by the real actors in this world, the white people.
The moment the little brown (or black) people are not linked to some white guy -- a long as the bad guy is not white -- who cares? It's not as if what black or brown people do to each other matters.
Brown and black people are just spear-holders in a walk-on role in the great passion play. All speaking roles -- whether as the hero (the "anti-zionist") or the villan (the jews) -- are reserved for whites.