Galloway is back

[Virus]

I don't think it can be denied that western governments aren't always exactly choosy about their allies. Being an enemy of an enemy is often good enough and political manoeuvring often trumps ethical concerns.

Sometimes it's the least bad option.

 

[joolz]

You mean the one that won the SNP the Glasgow East by-election?

Rolfe.

That was the point I decided never to vote Labour again, but I relented for a while as I loathe the Tories so much. Then came the referendum announcement and all that nonsense

Galloway should liven things up again, surely his election and the opinion polls will lead to a shake-up. Maybe if he offers to join the Unionists then they'll all change and support independence

 

[Rolfe]

I think the SNP loathe the Tories quite a bit more than Labour do, actually.

I had such fun running round Baillieston shoving leaflets with that photo on one side and "Vote John Mason" on the other. We won by 365 votes.

Rolfe.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You should have put a nausea warning on this! The first photo in the link is vomit inducing. Almost as bad as the one of a smiling Brown shaking hands with Th*tch*r at Downing Street.

I don't know anything above the real basics of UK politics but from context I see that those are the leaders of "the" three leading parties. There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture without knowing anything more.

The phenomenon of "old school" labour/social democrats not being able to vote for the traditional "camp" with genuine confidence is international through most of Europe, and the race for the lowest standards started - not everywhere at once - with the disappearance of "the other" model in the early nineties.

 

[joolz]

I think the SNP loathe the Tories quite a bit more than Labour do, actually.

I had such fun running round Baillieston shoving leaflets with that photo on one side and "Vote John Mason" on the other. We won by 365 votes.

Rolfe.

I'd probably have helped you !!!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Good luck finding another source for that claim.

Judging by its description it's a Guardian article dated "10-8-1" hosted on Rense.com.

 

[Virus]

I don't frequent Rense.com. I saw a website quoting 'The Guardian'. If I had frequented the site I probably would have realised they weren't referring to the UK Guardian paper. I have never said anything anti-Semitic in my life, primarily because I'm not an anti-Semite. I remembered reading in the papers how the Taliban had had US money and weapons a while back and I just picked a link that referred to it as an example.

The Guardian told you the US supported a group that didn't even exist at the time and you believed them? If The Guardian told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?

 

[geni]

Firstly, using white phosphorus as a marker isn't banned.

You can also use if for is setting people on fire. Using it to create chemical burns is banned however.

A) The Israelis went in after thousands of rocket attacks were made against them, not just because they wanted to screw around.

We really have no idea why the Israeli government chose to go in. Sure there are a few stated reasons but assuming that you credit the Israeli government with even minimal brain power those can be largely ignored as a PR exercise.

B) They tried to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible (see British officers testimony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kemp#Testimony_on_the_Gaza_War )

Yes more PR. He wasn't there and his links make his assessment at best suspect to the point of uselessness.

C)morally the fault of Hamas for having incited the operation with all of the rocket strikes

Few problems with that. Firstly you are buying into the same idiology that promotes the whole cycle of violence thing as legitimate. Hamas would argue that they were in turn incited (although it should be noted that their involvement with rocket attacks is more limited than they might like you to think). Sure we can accept the line of argument but it leaves us in the unfortunate position of having to consider the moral case of the Canaanites. Or perhaps we should blame Merneptah.

(would any country not retaliate to thousands of rockets being fired at its civilians?)

Given the known level of sophistication of the rockets the suggestion that they were fired at civilians or in indeed any target more specific than "the british mandate of palestine" is highly questionable

I defy you to find a major power, in all of history, that has been half as restrained, generous, done as much good (or refrained from so much bad) as the USA.

Depends on your defintions. Their extreme isolationism may mean that china has qualified.

 

[geni]

Galloway should liven things up again, surely his election and the opinion polls will lead to a shake-up.

Not remotely.

The house of commons absorbed Ian Paisley for decades. The amount of drama one annoying MP can cause is limited.

In terms of wider policy changes don't expect much. Policy is for a large part being driven by budgetary concerns which limit room for manoeuvre. Labour simply can't adopt much of the Respect party's agender because they would have to explain where the money is going to come from (afganistan is no use either since there is already a withdrawal plan in place).

 

[dudalb]

So everyone's favourite supporter of murderous villains -George Galloway- has unexpectedly won the Bradford West by-election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17549388

Four hellish years of this again.

Well, at least comedians in the UK are assured of Four Years of good material again........

 

[dudalb]

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...

That is exactly why electing Crackpot Extremists to office to "send a Message" to the "Establishement Politicians" is a dangerous,dangerous, policy.
The rise of the Nazis to power in Germany is the #1 example of that.

 

[Virus]

Depends on your defintions. Their extreme isolationism may mean that china has qualified.

China is the greatest mass-murderer in human history.

 

[WildCat]

Rense.com was only one of several sites that have that info, I had never been to that site before today, but I can share the other links I found if you like?

I bet you can't find non-conspiracy nutter sites that say the US funded the Taliban.

Gosh, so you're saying that getting the IRA to bomb us gives you credit for that success? Is there no end to US magnanimity? I guess I should kiss Uncle Sam's feet in thanks for the terrorism he inflicted!

The action you linked to (did you even read the article?) occurred only after Sinn Fein declared a cease fire and intent to negotiate instead of fight. In return Clinton took the IRA off of the terrorist organization list. Once they were off that they're free to fund raise like any other group. Prior to that it was illegal for US residents to give money to the IRA.

Please quote where I said that the UK are blameless? Our PMs are often the lapdog for the US president so why would you expect me to defend them?

Ah, so when the UK does something dodgy it's because the US made them do it.

Please explain why you feel that condemning one group's actions must mean you support their opponents? Is everything so clearly decided in your life? No grey areas? And don't play semantics to avoid the issue and white phosphorus is most certainly not harmless. They dropped white phosphorus on Gaza as they bombed it. That has been proven. They eventually agreed not to do it again, so they know it was wrong.

There was nothing illegal or improper with the use of white phosphorous as an artillery marker or as a smoke screen. If death and destruction is the aim standard high explosive shells do a far better job.

Please quote where I said that Israel are not allowed to defend themselves? If your beliefs are all black or white then presumably you feel the Palestinians don't have the right to defend themselves? Why not? Why shouldn't the Palestinians drop white phosphorous on the illegal Israeli settlements? That would be more justifiable than Israelis harming civilians. And don't jump to the conclusion that I'd suppport this, as I wouldn't.

So do tell, what options does joolz approve of for Israel to go after the people who launched thousands of rockets and mortars at Israeli towns? Ask them nicely to stop?

I don't frequent Rense.com. I saw a website quoting 'The Guardian'. If I had frequented the site I probably would have realised they weren't referring to the UK Guardian paper. I have never said anything anti-Semitic in my life, primarily because I'm not an anti-Semite. I remembered reading in the papers how the Taliban had had US money and weapons a while back and I just picked a link that referred to it as an example. Is everyone who criticises an Israeli action an anti-semite in your opinoin?

Not everyone, but when they start linking to Jeff Rense...

You need evidence that there are US religious fundamentalists? Look around.

So? Are they doing anything illegal while the US government looks the other way?

I was quoting Americans. Should I have assumed they were lying?

You made a lot of unsupported allegations that make it obvious you know next to nothing about Americans.

If only you weren't as keen to get into other 'tribal spats' either <sigh>

It's hard to clean up the mess 500 years of European colonialism created.

Where did I say it does?

You sure speak with quite the aura of superiority...

That's your job, not ours. We don't claim to be the world police.

I know, you guys like to defecate on the bed and then run off and criticize the way others clean up the mess.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I bet you can't find non-conspiracy nutter sites that say the US funded the Taliban.

This after the various previous posts. Make a knot in your brain, reader.

 

[WildCat]

This after the various previous posts. Make a knot in your brain, reader.

Did I insult your favorite sources of information?

 

[Ziggurat]

Some opposition is explicitly non-democratic. And is axiomatically good for democracy. You really don't get it? Just chanting "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" is ok, I guess. All opposition is axiomatically good for debate

Yeah, sorry, you're the one who doesn't get it. When you declare something axiomatically true, that is (by the definition of axiomatic) simply stating something to be true with no proof or evidence. It is in fact a claim that no proof or evidence is even needed. So it is you, not me, who keeps chanting "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!"

So here's some more of what you will not provide: an actual argument. When opposition is not only anti-democratic, but successful, then democracy, even the meme of democracy, can get displaced. There is no sensible definition of democracy under which that can be considered a good thing for democracy. In fact, it is possible for democracy to be entirely snuffed out of existence by opposition. How, pray tell, would that be a good thing for democracy?

But perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps the problem isn't your definition of democracy, but your definition of good.

Well you'd do well not to comment on UK politics if you're wholly ignorant of the system.

I'm not wholly ingorant of the system. I'm just accustomed to using a different vocabulary than you are. Are you ignorant of the way Americans (and I'm an American) use the word "government"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Funding the Taliban at one point as they were 'resistance fighters', then deciding they were 'terrorists' after all.

Wildcat has been toying with you, but since you haven't clued in yet, let me tell you what's going on.

The US never funded the Taliban.

We funded the Mujahideen, a loose collection of guerilla fighters in Afghanistan. During this period, the Taliban did not exist. After the Soviets left, we stopped funding them. The Taliban were founded some time after the Soviets left, and after US funding stopped. And we never funded them, Pakistan did. There's a lot to criticize about how we dropped the ball after the Soviets left, and even some moral ambiguity about our funding of the Mujahideen, but we never funded the Taliban. Anyone who claims we did is either a liar or a fool.

 

[JihadJane]

That is exactly why electing Crackpot Extremists to office to "send a Message" to the "Establishement Politicians" is a dangerous,dangerous, policy.
The rise of the Nazis to power in Germany is the #1 example of that.

It's deeper than "sending a message. Galloway isn't an "Crackpot Extremist".

Many people in the UK now reject the discredited "Establishment Politicians" completely, and with good reason.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Galloway isn't an "Crackpot Extremist".

He provides funding for terrorist groups.

 

[Childlike Empress]

He provides funding for terrorist groups.