• 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

GlennB said:
Yes. And maybe the production-line, self-serving, anodyne dullards that populate Westminster might sit up and take note that maybe, just maybe, they need to actually do something in order to earn a seat.
Click to expand...

Probably not, the vast majority of MPs, including new members, will get elected at a general election rather than a by election. Being a maverick works great when you can get plenty media attention and be a home for a protest vote, but does not generally have much impact during a general election period. The safest way to get a seat is not to rock the boat.

This is probably not a good thing!
 
Andy andy,

How can someone run on an 'anti-war' ticket when they support murdering regimes such as Syria's Assad regime, Iran's Ahmedinijad, Saddam's Hussein's Iraq, and the Soviet Union?

More to the point, how can he show his face in an area with a high Muslim population when his support has gone to regimes that slaughtered Muslims in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan?

More and more to the point, how could you possibly vote for such a vile individual such as that?
 
andyandy said:
The point is that we have such an incredibly narrow spectrum of "mainstream views" that views which are held by large numbers of people are not represented by any main political party. That is not the sign of a healthy democracy.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, while in some ways the 3 main parties are possibly closer than they used to be, there are still major differences. Do you honestly think that Miliband and Cameron are "incredibly close" in their views and that it barely matters which one is PM?

I would argue that in some cases the rejection of the kooks (whether David Icke, BNP etc) is a sign of a confident, healthy democracy.

andyandy said:
For a candidate to gain 50% of the vote - on the back of appealing to those disenfranchised voters is good for democracy - regardless of what you think of Galloway.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That lots of people voted for a fringe tribal candidate is a disturbing sign of a fractured society and hardly an indication of healthy political debate. (I would consider it more like the disillusionment with the mainstream and rise of the fringe as was seen in Wiemar Germany, rather than as a sign that civic debate is getting healthier).
 
Comsat Angel said:
I wonder what his position is on Syria?
Click to expand...

Undesired Walrus said:
Andy andy,

How can someone run on an 'anti-war' ticket when they support murdering regimes such as Syria's Assad regime
Click to expand...

If Galloway was ever "supportive" of Asad, as of last August he has certainly changed his tune.

George Galloway on Syria:

But in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king and by 2006 Bashar al Assad was the last Arab leader standing. Syria was hated I said that night in the library not because of the bad things it has done but because of the good. I adumbrated them thus. Syria has refused to sign a surrender peace with Israel, refused to abandon its territory on the Golan to the illegal occupiers. Syria has refused to abandon the Palestinian resistance, continuing to give safe haven for the leaders, and fighters, of virtually the whole gamut of resistance organisations. Syria has insisted on supporting the Lebanese resistance, has refused to allow its territory to be used as a base against the resistance in Iraq and so forth. It was all true of course but it was not the whole truth.

The dark side of the Syrian regime, its authoritarian character, its police state mentality above all its deep-seated corruption fantastically exacerbated by the regimes neo-liberal turn with its attendant privatisations, substituting state property for private ownership by the regime’s comprador, by and large. This was another part of the truth though partly concealed by the Arab nationalist anti-Imperialist character of the Syrian people and their government. This has been the lived experience of most Syrians for over forty years. That’s a lot of darkness.


...


To describe the mass uprising in Syria, day after day for months and undaunted by the steadily rising price in blood being paid by the protestors, as the actions of “terrorists” and “gunmen” is a gross distortion. In fact the regime itself looks more and more like the terrorist, certainly the gunmen, in this picture. This is a genuine popular uprising taking place in Syria even if it is heavily infiltrated by all of Syria’s enemies - the enemies of all the Arabs in my view.

...

That’s why I must say it looks like five minutes to midnight in Syria for me. For years the President has talked of reform. But the more he talked the faster his relatives counted their ill-gotten gains.

...

Unless the Syrian regime can conclude an urgent agreement to proceed to elections, a free media, legal political opposition and an end to what has now become a massacre, the state is going to be invaded or is going to collapse under the weight of the bloodshed. And amidst the ruins of that, the rats of reaction, sectarian hatred and treason will certainly run free.
Click to expand...
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Andy andy,

How can someone run on an 'anti-war' ticket when they support murdering regimes such as Syria's Assad regime, Iran's Ahmedinijad, Saddam's Hussein's Iraq, and the Soviet Union?

More to the point, how can he show his face in an area with a high Muslim population when his support has gone to regimes that slaughtered Muslims in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan?

More and more to the point, how could you possibly vote for such a vile individual such as that?
Click to expand...

Maybe because "Muslims" have a more accurate understanding of his position on these regimes you falsely claim he supports than you do.
 
Cleon said:
If Galloway was ever "supportive" of Asad, as of last August he has certainly changed his tune.

George Galloway on Syria:
Click to expand...

There's no 'if' about it, not should "supportive" be in quotes.

In July 2005, Galloway spoke at Al-Assad National Library, saying, "Syria is lucky to have Bashar Al-Assad as her president."

In a remarkable speech, this time at Damascus University, Galloway said: "You know, it never ceases to surprise me that Arab governments can allow a foreigner to come to their country and sit at their tables with their leaders to insult and attack another Arab country. This is the behaviour of slave governments, and the Bahraini regime should have asked Condoleezza [Rice] to leave when she insulted Syria in their presence, in their capital. In fact, maybe it's the rulers who should leave." Galloway was referring to a meeting in Bahrain where Rice fired off provocative statements against Syria in the presence of Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara.

Galloway added, in front of Syrian officials who were all smiles, that "All dignified people in the world, whether Arabs or Muslims or others with dignity, are very proud of the speech made by President Bashar Al-Assad a few days ago here in Damascus," referring to Assad's speech of 10 November where he spoke of steadfastness; rhetoric popular in Syria since the 1960s. Assad, Galloway said, "is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of remaining dignity of the Arabs."
Click to expand...
 
Comsat Angel said:
I wonder what his position is on Syria?
Click to expand...
Galloway supported the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, even after Taif called for Syria to leave. Supported Bashar al-Assad before the latest bout of massacres started in Syria. Doesn't think Hezbollah is a terrorist group and doesn't think that Syria was involved in the al-Hariri assassination (instead Israel was, and continues to be even after the UN investigation proved otherwise). Doesn't think Hamas is a terrorist group either. And somehow doesn't understand the concept that providing a listed terrorist group over 25k means one is blocked from entering said country.

If Galloway somehow changed his mind about al-Assad now, I don't know. But he might be harping on about all sorts of conspiracies to save face.
 
Galloway is a self-aggrandizing jackass who will align himself with anyone who is anti-western. His 'bravura' performance in front of the US Senate was a song and dance routine to avoid discussing the question of his profiting from the sale of Iraqi oil. And if his constituents expect to see him actually visiting there now he's been elected they really haven't paid attention. There are reasons why he got booted from his previous constituencies, primarily that he couldn't be bothered dealing with their mundane everyday issues when there were TV cameras beckoning.
 
George Galloway: Douche extraordinaire.

This is a man who has built his entire career on the crude but simple philosophy that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. His enemy, like so many on the far Left, is of course his own government. It is this philosophy that enables Galloway, not a religious man by all accounts, to associate himself with Islamists who call for the execution of homosexuals, the total subjugation of women, and the extermination of an entire race.
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Galloway-is-no-friend-of-the-Arab-world.html
 
andyandy said:
An interesting result for UK (and in particular English) politics....

It represents a monumental swing away from Labour - and also a massive disillusionment with the main 3 parties.
Click to expand...
I know, sometimes you just have to vote for a raging anti-semite apolologist for brutal dictators just to make a point.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Andy andy,

How can someone run on an 'anti-war' ticket when they support murdering regimes such as Syria's Assad regime, Iran's Ahmedinijad, Saddam's Hussein's Iraq, and the Soviet Union?

More to the point, how can he show his face in an area with a high Muslim population when his support has gone to regimes that slaughtered Muslims in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan?

More and more to the point, how could you possibly vote for such a vile individual such as that?
Click to expand...
Sure he has his faults, but what a great orator! I mean, who cares about his loyal support for some of the most brutal regimes on the planet and genocidal terrorist groups when he can deliver zingers at the US Senate! That's what's really important.
 
George Galloway gives hope! ******** everywhere can clearly see they aren't the biggest ******* in the universe.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Andy andy,

How can someone run on an 'anti-war' ticket when they support murdering regimes such as Syria's Assad regime, Iran's Ahmedinijad, Saddam's Hussein's Iraq, and the Soviet Union?

More to the point, how can he show his face in an area with a high Muslim population when his support has gone to regimes that slaughtered Muslims in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan?

More and more to the point, how could you possibly vote for such a vile individual such as that?
Click to expand...

Labour supported an illegal war which left up to a million dead (but who knows because we don't bother to count "collateral damage"....) Labour were complicit in extra-judicial kidnap and torture. Your support has gone to a party which has slaughtered Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan (or is slaughter OK when we do it with bombs?) How can you possibly call yourself a labour supporter?

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.

As I have said already, the guy is a tool - but it's a reflection of how utterly awful all the alternatives are that I would say he is better than a vote for any tory or tory-lite alternative. Our democracy needs a wider expression of views than is currently on offer in Westminster. If that means people whose views I don't always agree with being elected so be it - that's a healthier state of democracy than your preferred alternative where we all keep our heads down and choose if we prefer neo-liberal candidate A neo-liberal candidate B or neo-liberal candidate C.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom