• 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

Giz said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes - they are and no I don't think it would. Just about every Tory policy - on academies, on increased NHS privatisation, on tuition fees, on privatising the post office on PFI deals etc etc. is just an extension of labour policies. The best that Ed could do in response to the tuition fees betrayal was to suggest that maybe under Labour students would only pay £6,000. That's our choice - tories or tory-lite. We get to exactly the same place whichever is in charge.....

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.
Click to expand...

A healthy democracy simply reflects the views that people hold - whatever they may be.


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).
Click to expand...

So would you prefer that those massive numbers of disaffected voters did not have the choice to vote for Galloway? If there is massive disillusionment with the mainstream parties then it is up to those mainstream parties to respond to that by changing their policies. If they do not do that then the only way of affecting change would be for a non-mainstream party/individual to win. It is incredibly unhealthy for democracy to have massive numbers of disenfranchised voters being ignored by mainstream parties - political debate is indeed improved by allowing those disenfranchised voters to express their views within the political system.
 
andyandy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Andyandy,

Even though I disagreed with the intervention in Iraq, Tony Blair and the Labour party never actively sought to murder and torture Muslims in any of those countries. Assad, Saddam and Ahmedinijad did. Indeed, the deaths in Iraq were frequently the result of the actions Galloway said (In Syria) were 'writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day'. Don't forget, this vile statement is referring to 'military operations' that maimed and killed countless men, women and children in Baghdad and elsewhere.

Anyway, even if they did, is the best Galloway can come up with is 'well they supported it too'?
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
Andyandy,

Tony Blair and the Labour party never actively sought to murder Muslims in any of those countries. Assad, Saddam and Ahmedinijad did.

Anyway, even if they did, is the best Galloway can come up with is 'well they supported it too'?
Click to expand...

So a million dead in an illegal war is OK because we didn't mean it? We knew that dropping thousands of bombs would result in massive civilian deaths but did it anyway. When Tony Blair lied to the nation about weapons of mass destruction, when he jumped into bed with the American right itching to start a war, when he ignored one of the biggest political protest marches in British history (of a million strong), then the Labour party has to accept culpability for the consequences.

In terms of equivalence - the Labour party were actively complicit in bringing about these deaths. Galloway whilst his support for various autocratic regimes is very unpleasant was not himself actively complicit in bringing about deaths in these regimes. So who is worse? How can you possibly vote for such a vile party?
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Don't be silly.... that's probably the most credible candidate there, from the Monster Raving Loonies.

http://www.loonyparty.com/
Click to expand...

Ah, Yes! It appears the Lib Dems got about 1000 votes. That is hilarious and yet I am amazed that there are still 1000 people willing to vote Lib Dem.

It isn't surprising that Galloway won this. All the major three parties are so crap that they all deserve to lose big. Winning by 10,000 votes is massive.
 
andyandy said:
So a million dead in an illegal war is OK because we didn't mean it?
Click to expand...

Just to refine this, I think you mean: 'Are you saying that a million dead in an illegal war is OK because our actions were not aimed at bringing about that number?'. No, I would not say it is 'OK'. However, are these actions a damn sight better than a regime that actively drills nails into young Syrian's heads, which according to Galloway is a government that is 'a breath of fresh air'? Yes.

When Tony Blair... ignored one of the biggest political protest marches in British history (of a million strong)
Click to expand...

I was one of them.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Wasn't a million. Wasn't illegal. Terrorists did it. Galloway supported the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Virus, on the bright side you can be happy that hundreds of thousands of Ehrabs got turned to pink mist. They're just a bunch of terrorists after all.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Just to refine this, I think you mean: 'Are you saying that a million dead in an illegal war is OK because our actions were not aimed at bringing about that number?'. No, I would not say it is 'OK'. However, are these actions a damn sight better than a regime that actively drills nails into young Syrian's heads, which according to Galloway is a government that is 'a breath of fresh air'? Yes.
Click to expand...

So you support a party which was responsible for bringing about a million deaths in an illegal war, but baulk at Galloway for making positive comments about an autocratic regime? Which is actually worse? Galloway isn't actually responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands - the labour party are.

We can go round the world and look at how many violent, repressive and autocratic countries the UK governments (all all hues) have been in bed with over the past 50 years - I'm not sure how that is different. We sell billions of pounds of weapons to horrible regimes in the middle east, sending ministers to toady up to them to make sure the money keeps flowing. We sack diplomats who dare to suggest that the murderous regime in Uzbekistan is actually vile - because they were a useful ally in Afghanistan. We were complicit in extra judicial kidnap and torture - of whisking away suspects to black-hole sites in horrible regimes around the world so that their local security forces could torture at will. 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)?

I was one of them
Click to expand...

And the labour party betrayed you.....
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
So a million dead
Click to expand...
Nowhere near a million and most of the actual casualties were killed by Galloway's heroic freedom fighters.

But hey, sometines you gotta strap a bomb to a developmentally disabled person and send them to a crowded market. That's how you fight for freedom!
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Nowhere near a million and most of the actual casualties were killed by Galloway's heroic freedom fighters.
Click to expand...

(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.
 
andyandy said:
(I must have missed the memo that elevated Galloway to leader of the Iraqi insurgents)
Click to expand...
No, Galloway just cheered them on in their campaign of murder and torture.

And proudly brought sacks of cash to the genocidal terrorist group Hamas.

A real humanitarian! No wonder you think he's the cat's meow.
 
andyandy said:
If you start a war you are responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of that action.
Click to expand...

Saddam started it.

It's pretty clear you're trying to bog the discussion down into an irrelevant issue to because you support a fifth-column for Arab fascism.
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
So would you prefer that those massive numbers of disaffected voters did not have the choice to vote for Galloway? If there is massive disillusionment with the mainstream parties then it is up to those mainstream parties to respond to that by changing their policies. If they do not do that then the only way of affecting change would be for a non-mainstream party/individual to win. It is incredibly unhealthy for democracy to have massive numbers of disenfranchised voters being ignored by mainstream parties - political debate is indeed improved by allowing those disenfranchised voters to express their views within the political system.
Click to expand...

Disenfranchised? Whats to stop any voter who feels ignored by the big three from getting off his arse and making a new party? These is the internet age - organizing is easier and cheaper than ever before!

And another thing (as you appear to have misunderstood my point): of course Galloway should be able to stand for election. Heck, the reprehensible BNP should be able to stand for election. It's when these unsavory jokers win an election that we might want to stop and ask ourselves what this means to British civil society (i.e. increased tribalistic segregated voting blocs rather than a common demos) (or, disillusion with mainstream parties leading to support growing for extremists... oh dear, I've already used the Weimar analogy haven't I?).
 
andyandy said:
However you wouldn't have had an insurgency without a war
Click to expand...

True, you would have just have had a murderous totalitarian regime (to which you no doubt had banners reading ("Yes, in my name!").
 
angrysoba said:
Yes, but Virus, on the bright side you can be happy that hundreds of thousands of Ehrabs got turned to pink mist. They're just a bunch of terrorists after all.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are suggesting that hundreds of thousands of Canadian-Iraqi dual citizens were killed. Source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom