• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Galloway is back

andyandy said:
(I must have missed the memo that elevated Galloway to leader of the Iraqi insurgents)

If you start a war you are responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of that action. That's not to say the insurgents in Iraq are absolved of responsibility - they are also responsible for their actions. However you wouldn't have had an insurgency without a war - so yes, labour (and the neo-cons) are responsible for the massive death toll in Iraq. You say nowhere near a million - but let's face it, no-one knows the true figure because dead foreigners aren't considered important enough to count.
Click to expand...

That's like saying we wouldn't have domestic violence without burnt pot roast and beer served at an improper temperature.
 
WildCat said:
No, Galloway just cheered them on in their campaign of murder and torture.
Click to expand...

So actually engaging in widespread extra judicial kidnap and torture OK

Starting the Iraq war leading to a million dead (but like I've said, who knows because we don't count foreigners' deaths) - OK.

Opposing the Iraq war - not OK

making comments about the rights to resist occupation (whether you believe that argument or not) definitely not OK....

Supporting disgusting autocratic regimes across the world OK (as long as it's done by us)

Supporting disgusting autocratic regimes across the world definitely not OK (if it's done by someone else.)

Glad we got that one sorted. I'm not a supporter of Galloway - as I've said the guy is a tool - but there is staggering hypocrisy amongst some of those who oppose him....
 
portlandatheist said:
That's like saying we wouldn't have domestic violence without burnt pot roast and beer served at an improper temperature.
Click to expand...

yeah, who'd ever think that starting a war could lead to large numbers of civilians getting killed? Serving warm beer is hardly analogous to starting a war is it really?
 
Giz said:
True, you would have just have had a murderous totalitarian regime (to which you no doubt had banners reading ("Yes, in my name!").
Click to expand...

When you start opposing all the other disgusting regimes that America (and the UK) actively supports (indeed has been more than happy to make use of their security forces to torture on their behalf), then I might believe you are actually interested in more than just points scoring. Until then, can you print out your own banner to wave?
 
WildCat said:
Why does Galloway cheer on those who bomb markets, kidnap, torture, foment sectarian violence and otherwise engage in a war against civilians?

Why do you support this assclown?
Click to expand...

Because he jumped the shark after becoming disillusioned with Labour and now supports anyone outside the mainstream? Fight the Man!! Bring it all down!!!
 
George Galloway's support for Nazis:

We might as well begin the story with that British MP, the bombastic George Galloway, because it was only earlier this week that Galloway, the vice-president of Britain's Stop the War Coalition and the darling of Canada's "anti-war" left, was on a whirlwind run of speaking engagements in Ontario -- one of which was a celebration to commemorate the 74th anniversary of the founding of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party
Click to expand...

The Syrian Social Nationalist Party are Nazis.

Is supporting Nazis a red-line for you Andy?
 
andyandy said:
If you start a war you are responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of that action.
Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree. How can you possibly say that Tony Blair is responsible for a down syndrome child being fit with explosives and sent into a crowded market? If you are interested in emancipating the citizens of these countries, you could start but not denigrating them by labelling their conscious and morality less functional than a politician in the West.

Is Osama Bin Laden responsible for the deaths of the the 16 Afghan citizens who were killed by a US Marine recently? I don't think so. Maybe you have a different opinion.

That's not to say the insurgents in Iraq are absolved of responsibility - they are also responsible for their actions. However you wouldn't have had an insurgency without a war
Click to expand...

Again, these murderers are not children who only misbehave because their parents behave irresponsibly. They are grown men and women with minds of their own.

Tony Blair was happy to swap compliments and gurn with Gadaffi - back when he was our mate, before we decided he was our enemy. If you oppose such hypocrisy in Galloway, then why stop there? How can such actions be deplorable for him, but acceptable for the labour party (or whoever is in power)?
Click to expand...

If Tony Blair said that Gadaffi was either:

1: A breath of fresh air
2: A dictator the Libyan people were lucky to have as a leader

Or stood by his side and praised the suicide attacks in Iraq, then I'd be condemning him as strongly as I do Galloway.
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
To look back at George's (very) dodgy history with repressive regimes is to miss the point about what he was running on in this election . He wasn't running on a "Isn't Iran great" ticket - but anti-war and anti-mainstream parties. He is an expert (at very cynically) changing the message depending on who he is talking to. Indeed, he garnered large support from Muslims in this election who want us to be pulled out of Afghanistan, who want us to stop using drone attacks in Pakistan and who want us to be more supportive of Palestinian rights. He also picked up support from people complete disaffected with the same identikit career politicians who all offer the same narrow neoliberal choice. Maybe you disagree with that, but that is why he won.
Click to expand...


And yet less than a year ago he tried to get elected to the Scottish parliament. Many commentators and psephologists predicted that he'd get sufficient votes in the PR system to get a seat - Margo MacDonald is regularly returned to Holyrood that way. He failed miserably.

You keep calling him a tool. I don't get it. Who is he a tool of? I would have thought that if he's anything, he's his own man. He may support objectionable people, but he's hardly a catspaw.

Rolfe.
 
Galloway gets voted back in, on his single issue, that he always fails to push once in any seat. He is one of the guys who screams "THIS IS WRONG!" but does nothing to make it right when he can just keep telling everybody else how wrong they are.

His political career will continue to flacid noise.
 
Captain_Snort said:
I, for one, salute his courage, his strength, his indefatigability.

I actually agree with much of what he stands for, and am happy he has been re-elected. Politics nowadays is full of boring, media friendly, bland grey suits who seem to be unable to think for themselves but tow a party line, often against common sense, spouting out the same old lies about war, terrorism and especially the economy.

Hopefully he will hold up a mirror to the two faced lies that are current in modern UK politics.

It was funny listening to the Conservative's "Auntie Tom", Baroness Warsi on the Today program, trying not to mention that they had lost over 22% of the vote and spouting how it was almost a positive thing and a lot worse for Labour
Click to expand...

Why then are you for Galloway as he is probably the most "media friendly" MP of recent decades. He has even had his own national radio show in his most recent "wilderness" years.
 
Giz said:
...snip...

This election just shows the lack of immigrant integration into UK society.
Click to expand...

Your statement seems to assume a hell of a lot e.g. who voted for him, why they voted for him, the make-up of the population in Bradford and so on. Apart from there being a comparatively number of "ethnic" minorities in Bradford do you have any evidence for your many, many assumptions.

Certainly being "anti-war" is not an indicator of "... lack of integration of into UK society.." given the large percentage of the UK that was against the last was in Iraq and Afghanistan even prior to the "lies" of the dossier and so on coming to light. e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2765041.stm
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
I fundamentally disagree. How can you possibly say that Tony Blair is responsible for a down syndrome child being fit with explosives and sent into a crowded market? If you are interested in emancipating the citizens of these countries, you could start but not denigrating them by labelling their conscious and morality less functional than a politician in the West.

Is Osama Bin Laden responsible for the deaths of the the 16 Afghan citizens who were killed by a US Marine recently? I don't think so. Maybe you have a different opinion.
Click to expand...

What responsibility should someone who starts a war have with regards to the people who die as a result? Are you arguing none? We started the war, but all those deaths, all the millions displaced, nothing to do with us....?

Again, these murderers are not children who only misbehave because their parents behave irresponsibly. They are grown men and women with minds of their own.
Click to expand...

and they are responsible for their actions - as we are for ours.


If Tony Blair said that Gadaffi was either:

1: A breath of fresh air
2: A dictator the Libyan people were lucky to have as a leader

Or stood by his side and praised the suicide attacks in Iraq, then I'd be condemning him as strongly as I do Galloway.
Click to expand...

So Tony Blair:

actual leader of our country - who leads the country into an illegal war by lying about the evidence for WMD.

who toadies up to Gadaffi with numerous trips and cosy chats

is OK

Whilst Galloway:

An egotist with hardly any power or influence who opposes the war

who toadies up to Gadaffi with cosy chats

is vile.

You can get me to agree that Galloway is a hypocrite, a self publicist with a very dubious history of dodgy friends. Sure. But I find it staggering that this metric is only applied one way. Blair is far more culpable than Galloway - he was the actual prime minister - he was the one who actually led us to war - he was the one with the massive power and influence who used it to befriend Gadaffi. Criticise Galloway all you like, but if you do please apply the same standards to Blair.
 
Rolfe said:
And yet less than a year ago he tried to get elected to the Scottish parliament. Many commentators and psephologists predicted that he'd get sufficient votes in the PR system to get a seat - Margo MacDonald is regularly returned to Holyrood that way. He failed miserably.

You keep calling him a tool. I don't get it. Who is he a tool of? I would have thought that if he's anything, he's his own man. He may support objectionable people, but he's hardly a catspaw.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Sorry - maybe a colloquialism - "tool" means "bit of an idiot" round where I'm from....;)
 
WildCat said:
Why does Galloway cheer on those who bomb markets, kidnap, torture, foment sectarian violence and otherwise engage in a war against civilians?

Why do you support this assclown?
Click to expand...

Easy answer - I don't support him. I do support the widening of the political sphere to allow anti-war, anti-austerity, anti-mainstream parties views to be heard. If he actually ran on any of the opinions you attribute above, well I can see why that would be a problem. But he didn't. Clearly you don't follow local British politics - so you're not actually interested in what he was campaigning for, or why people voted for him, you're just spoiling for the usual points-win JREF brawl....

I could always ask in return though, that since, the American government is responsible for illegal wars, extra judicial kidnap, torture, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, has a long and very inglorious history of supporting some of the most unpleasant regimes across the world, propping up dictatorships, arming repressive regimes, undermining democracy whenever it suits, why do you support your government?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Four hellish years of this again.
Click to expand...

By the way, this may not necessarily be true.

If there is any justice the coalition will fall at some point soon and then a general election can be called.

If Labour actually manage to put together a proper platform in which it actually opposes the coalition and doesn't keep scrabbling for the same votes the ConDems get then Galloway can get booted out.

Although, it is interesting that Galloway claimed in his acceptance speech that that is exactly what he wants.

I don't like Galloway; the man's a demagogue of the most unsavoury kind. Whatever he says about Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad now he WAS a supporter of them. But one thing his election could do is show that there are plenty of people fed up with this coalescence of the three parties into being almost exactly the same. The fact that he won by 10,000 votes and got a 55% share suggests the three main parties are all being rejected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom