Galloway is back

[WildCat]

Not in this thread he hasn't.



Still waiting for your evidence.

So the video of him giving cash to Hamas is not evidence of him giving cash to Hamas?

Pay close attention at 2:30 of the video already provided.

Oh well, handwave away Darat.

 

[WildCat]

FTFY

Correct.

He didn't give it to the PA, he gave it to Hamas in Gaza.

 

[joolz]

The evidence that he funded a terrorist organization is that video of him funding a terrorist organization.

What video? Link to it here please. I haven't seen any video of him meeting Hamas or any other terrorist organisations or even mentioning giving them money. You can't make vague accusations like that without being called on to prove them, as you've been asked to do already in this thread.

 

[joolz]

He didn't give it to the PA, he gave it to Hamas in Gaza.

Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palestinian Government elected in Gaza.

ETA: As evidenced by your own video at 2:07. You can even read the subtitles saying he is giving the money to the elected governnment of Palestine if you don't understand the Arabic.

 

[Ziggurat]

An "unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for"? Sounds like a perfect description of Brussels.

Wouldn't it be Eurosceptic, anyway?

Touché.

 

[Ziggurat]

What video? Link to it here please.

What is it with people not being able to follow a thread?

Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palastinian Government elected in Gaza.

Did their electoral success stop Hamas from being a terrorist organization? Because I missed that memo. So apparently did their foot soldiers.

 

[Childlike Empress]

ETA: As evidenced by your own video at 2:07. You can even read the subtitles saying he is giving the money to the elected governnment of Palestine if you don't understand the Arabic.

 

[WildCat]

Glad you now agree that he gave it to the Palestinian Government elected in Gaza.

Exactly. And that elected government is Hamas, a known and recognized terrorist group.

It's not suddenly OK to give money to terrorists if they manage to get elected to office, or seize it by force.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Then in what possible sense can opposition be axiomatically good? Your position is incoherent.

In the sense it was offered and which you failed to complete. Opposition is axiomatically good for democracy. Your position is untenable.

Furthermore, and more importantly, you have already conceded the essential point by this statement. If some elements of some opposing positions might be fairly assessed as being not-good for a particular democratic country, then it is obviously possible that George Galloway's positions may be fairly assessed as being not-good for the UK.

Yes...and opposition remains axiomatically good for democracy, while not necessarily, in any particular instance, being wholly good for the democratic country. Round and round we go. No wonder you have so many posts if you spend so many going over and over the same mistake in a stunningly tenacious refusal to back down.

One wonders what "democracy itself" even is, if it enjoys benefits from things which actual democratic countries suffer from. One also wonders why we should care about the benefit to an abstraction when harm is done to real people.

Have you tried googling 'democracy'? dictionary.com is a good basic resource, but you'll probably want to read some scholarly articles too, to get a fuller picture.

Of course, you don't have to care about democracy at all. Nobody said you should. Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If we are going to deny that a terrorist organisation can become an elected government, we may find ourselves denying the legitimacy of a number of nations.
Among them, Israel and the United States of America.

Like it or not, Hamas is the government of Palestine and we got the ConDems.

Not sure who got the worse deal, frankly.

 

[WildCat]

If we are going to deny that a terrorist organisation can become an elected government, we may find ourselves denying the legitimacy of a number of nations.
Among them, Israel and the United States of America.

Like it or not, Hamas is the government of Palestine and we got the ConDems.

Not sure who got the worse deal, frankly.

Like it or not, Hamas is a known and recognized terrorist group and Galloway handed them sacks of cash.

 

[Ziggurat]

Have you tried googling 'democracy'? dictionary.com is a good basic resource, but you'll probably want to read some scholarly articles too, to get a fuller picture.

That's a dodge. What is "democracy itself"? The dictionary will tell me what a democracy is, and we've established that opposition can be bad for actual democracies. Neither the dictionary nor Google will tell me what you mean by "democracy itself". Perhaps you mean some Platonic form, but such forms (to the extent that we take them to exist at all) are unaffected by specific events. You obviously mean something other than actual democracies, but something which can be effected by real-world events. So again I ask: what is this thing you refer to as "democracy itself"? Because you certainly aren't using a dictionary definition.

Of course, you don't have to care about democracy at all.

I care about actual democracies (something you seem indifferent to). I have no idea what you even mean by "democracy itself", so logically I'm not capable of caring about whatever it is.

Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs.

You mean to propose and vote on legislation to help run the country, with a particular view to representing the interests of their constituents? Why, wherever did I get that idea?

 

[Toontown]

Opposition was certainly good for the Wiemar Republic...er...

Well, not so much, actually, but it's collapse didn't lead to a world war or anything...er...

 

[angrysoba]

Opposition was certainly good for the Wiemar Republic...er...

Well, not so much, actually, but it's collapse didn't lead to a world war or anything...er...

Well, a world war actually led to the Weimar Republic which was never really a very stable democracy from the beginning. It started out with extreme factions variously trying to take over power and having to be brutally put down by paramilitary groups. I don't think the UK is anything like in the state the Weimar Republic was in.

 

[angrysoba]

Galloway and Ishmail Haniyeh:

 

[Darat]

Are you two not paying any attention?

Saw that, as I said have you any evidence that he has funded a terrorist organisation, which is of course very much illegal in the UK.

 

[andyandy]

Exactly. And that elected government is Hamas, a known and recognized terrorist group.

It's not suddenly OK to give money to terrorists if they manage to get elected to office, or seize it by force.

Just as an aside, what definition of terrorism are you using? Because if elected/non elected governments can be called terrorists then it suddenly becomes quite difficult to differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist.

America gives sack loads of cash to autocratic and repressive rulers with appalling human rights records all across the globe - what's the difference here?

Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = good (when it's America)

Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = bad (when it's not) ?

 

[JihadJane]

Just as an aside, what definition of terrorism are you using? Because if elected/non elected governments can be called terrorists then it suddenly becomes quite difficult to differentiate between terrorist and non-terrorist.

America gives sack loads of cash to autocratic and repressive rulers with appalling human rights records all across the globe - what's the difference here?

Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = good (when it's America)

Sackloads of cash to horrible regimes = bad (when it's not) ?

Bad when it's the bogieman.

 

[Small Town Jesus]

Did any of the Americans who gave money to the IRA ever suffer any repercussions for their funding of a terrorist organisation?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Saw that, as I said have you any evidence that he has funded a terrorist organisation, which is of course very much illegal in the UK.

British MP George Galloway Defies International Sanctions against Hamas and Compares Tony Blair to Caligula's Horse

Al-Jazeera TV, March 9, 2009
...
But I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors – Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan – are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniya. Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics. The government of Palestine is the best people where this money is needed. We are giving this money now to the government of Palestine. If I could, I would give them 10 times, 100 times more. We are against this siege. We are opposing this siege. We are breaking this siege. We are breaking this siege.
...

His own admission is not enough? The UK, strangely enough, doesn't list Hamas on their List of Designated Terrorist Organizations. On that same note though, Galloway should have been blocked entry to the US as Canada did. But it didn't when it definitely should have.

What more evidence is required according to you?