Moderated Views on George Galloway.

geni said:
Not really. Mostly aimed at civilian government infrastructure. Why the US chose to blow up a load of empty buildings is a bit of a mystry mind.
Click to expand...
"civilian government infrastructure"? :rolleyes:
 
Pardalis said:
What we call an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Nope. Any goverment infrastrute that isn't operated or used by the armed forces. For example schools are civilian.

Then you have a bunch of duel use stuff such as roads, railways and some kinds of port facilities and airports.
 
WildCat said:
"civilian government infrastructure"? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Tax offices, various civil service stuff. Has the advantage of being easy to find and since they generaly don't have kid or indeed anyone in them at night they can be blown up without inconvent TV pics.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Zuezz, the suicide bombers in Afghanistan are not the French Revolution. They are not spraying acid into the eyes of schoolgirls because an unjust occupation has made them do so. They do it because their ideology and viciousness is deeply embedded and predates the invasion. They aren't the french revolution.
Click to expand...

Suicide bombing didn't exist in Afghanistan before the invasion.

The "suicide bombers" in Afghanistan are frequently motivated by very personal experiences of the occupiers' violence, such as the death and abuse of family members.

They are, indeed, consciously resisting an unjust occupation and with the most effective means available to them.
 
geni said:
Nope. Any goverment infrastrute that isn't operated or used by the armed forces. For example schools are civilian.
Click to expand...
OK, and which schools were bombed during the "shock and awe" phase?
 
geni said:
Nope. Any goverment infrastrute that isn't operated or used by the armed forces. For example schools are civilian.

Then you have a bunch of duel use stuff such as roads, railways and some kinds of port facilities and airports.
Click to expand...

In duels, they use guns.
 
WildCat said:
OK, and which schools were bombed during the "shock and awe" phase?
Click to expand...

Before the war, a bunch of "peace activists" came to Iraq to assist Saddam against the evil American imperialists by offering themselves as "human shields" in schools, hospitals, etc.

When they realized Saddam plans to put them as "human shields" in places the coalition's forces really would target -- government offices, army bases, etc. -- they beat a hasty retreat back to the safe bosom of the evil imperialist western countries.
 
JihadJane said:
Suicide bombing didn't exist in Afghanistan before the invasion.

The "suicide bombers" in Afghanistan are frequently motivated by very personal experiences of the occupiers' violence, such as the death and abuse of family members.

They are, indeed, consciously resisting an unjust occupation and with the most effective means available to them.
Click to expand...

Against the wishes of the majority of the population.

Remember your false claims about the Afghans hating the Americans more than the Taliban?
 
WildCat said:
OK, and which schools were bombed during the "shock and awe" phase?
Click to expand...

Strawman there.

Heh although I'm not sure that there is anything under international law that outlaws bombing schools per se.
 
JihadJane said:
Suicide bombing didn't exist in Afghanistan before the invasion.

The "suicide bombers" in Afghanistan are frequently motivated by very personal experiences of the occupiers' violence, such as the death and abuse of family members.

They are, indeed, consciously resisting an unjust occupation and with the most effective means available to them.
Click to expand...

It would be impossible to say that the recent suicide bombings in Pakistan were the Taliban 'resisting an unjust occupation'. It's the same organisation that murders people in Afghanistan, and it isn't motivated by the injustice of an invasion.

The Taliban aren't the French resistance.
 
Last edited:
Now that he no longer even has to keep up a semblance of any appearance of decency, chances are Galloway will be officially shilling for some tinpot dictator for the money any day now. Certainly Saddam got his money's worth for the $300,000 or so he paid him in oil-for-food money.
 
Skeptic said:
Now that he no longer even has to keep up a semblance of any appearance of decency, chances are Galloway will be officially shilling for some tinpot dictator for the money any day now. Certainly Saddam got his money's worth for the $300,000 or so he paid him in oil-for-food money.
Click to expand...


Absolute codwash.

Galloway was falsely accused of this and the evidence was fabricated. He even won two court cases against tabloids in the UK after it for them publishing these lies, so dont try to link to them to prove it, as they had to pay him thousands in compensation and retract their claims.

He had to swear under oath in a senate commitee testimony against the charges and TOTALLY wiped the floor with them. If there had been the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence to prosecture galloway then they would have jumped on it, but after his testimony and the the amount of crimes he managed to counter claim the US adminstration were guilty of they dropped the case and tried to forget of the whole ordeal, which really blew up in their faces.

Watch his full testimony in these two videos here:





pwnd.
 
He had to swear under oath in a senate commitee testimony against the charges
Click to expand...
Yeah, and he wouldn't lie about something like THAT, would he?

Actually, the report in question is very damning to Galloway. While the House of Common's investigations didn't prove he got money personally, it is the case that

there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Oil for Food Programme was used by the Iraqi government, with Mr Galloway's connivance, to fund the campaigning activities of the Mariam Appeal. In acting as he did, Mr Galloway breached the advocacy rule and damaged the reputation of the House. We believe he was complicit in the concealment of the true source of the funds for the Mariam Appeal. He was also in our view reckless in the terms of the authority he gave Mr Fawaz Zureikat to act in his name in relation to the Mariam Appeal. Further he was clearly irresponsible in refusing to enquire into the source of Mr Zureikat's substantial donations.
Click to expand...
And above all

Mr Galloway could reasonably be considered to be influenced in how he pursued his parliamentary activities in relation to seeking the lifting of sanctions against Iraq.
Click to expand...
...which is legalese for "Saddam bought the guy", which is precisely the point.

In short, he may be off on a technicality of not receiving the money personally (officially -- one of the funds he controls did), but he clearly was Saddam's tool.

If there had been the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence to prosecture galloway then they would have jumped on it,
Click to expand...
Just like if there had been the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence to prosecute Galloway for, I dunno, giving money and support to a murderous terrorist organization like Hamas, they would have jumped on it.

But he's still not in jail, so I guess all that stuff was an hallucination.

But oh, the things we learn by listening to Galloway, the brave beacon of truth. We learn, for example, that the Israelies are blue-eyed blondes (get it?) and that they drink the blood harvest the organs of non-Jews. Clearly, to judge from your posts, you consider him a reliable source about the Mossad, too.

I can see why he would protest that the whole oil-for-food scandal was fabricated. I mean, Saddam wasn't stupid: why pay good money to someone to praise terrorist bombing, support terrorist organizations, spread blood libels about the Jews and in general act like a total loony declaring all kinds of Jewish international conspiracies -- including the conspiracy to help bring Hitler to power -- when he clearly gladly does all that for free?

Someone like that can be counted to do his darnedest to support lifting the sanctions (so that Saddam could have continued to give Hamas & co. money for killing Jews) no matter what.

Saddam could have saved the money, if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom