Moderated Views on George Galloway.

Zeuzzz said:
Avoiding points raised noted.

Patronisation of messengers intelligence, whilst ignoring the message, dually noted.
Click to expand...

Er, I'd say that's a "no", as in "No, I don't really know what 'Mossad' means".

This isn't "patronisation". I'm just pointing out that you don't know the first thing about the Mossad, except that you "know" how evil and corrupt and awful it is.
 
Skeptic said:
This isn't "patronisation". I'm just pointing out that you don't know the first thing about the Mossad, except that you "know" how evil and corrupt and awful it is.
Click to expand...

Ok enlighten me to on all the things i dont know.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Anyone who follows the mossads policies on assassination, which seem to be murder any political opponents that they merely suspect may be planing acts of war or "terrorism", would have shot Tony Blair and George Bush long before the troops arrived in any country.
Click to expand...

Blair and Bush are not terrorists and did not plan acts of terrorism. But if you want to peddle Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda propaganda that the "real" terrorists are western democracies then be my guest.
 
Virus said:
He's not anti-war. He's pro-war but supports the other side
Click to expand...

Please define what you mean by "war".


Ashles said:
I'm not sure how far we are getting from the point now or why you're moving goalposts around like this.
Click to expand...

Which goalposts have I moved?


But, what the heck... evidence please for that statement.
Click to expand...

http://conium.org/~maccoun/MacCounPaletz2009PoliPsy.pdf



I was responding to Zeuzzz's comments, in which he provides an imagined justification.
I also do not know if George Galloway said the bombings were justified. Would it make any difference to your opinion of Galloway if he had said that?
(ETA - Never mind - I see he has)
Click to expand...

I assume your ETA refers to this:


"Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified.
Click to expand...

It is disingenuous to present this quote as a evidence of a blanket support for suicide bombings.

The normal objection to suicide bombings is that they disregard the lives of civilians or deliberately target them.

Galloway isn’t attempting to justify these kind of attacks. He is justifying the assassination of the instigators of the Iraq atrocity. The question of morality, in this case, isn’t about the morality of suicide bombing but about the morality of war. Suicide bombing is a weapon of war.

To be consistent while condemning the suicide bomb assassination that Galloway's questioner describes one would have to condemn, equally, any kind of military violence.

Virus said:
Blair and Bush are not terrorists and did not plan acts of terrorism. But if you want to peddle Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda propaganda that the "real" terrorists are western democracies then be my guest.
Click to expand...

What would you call "Shock and Awe"?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
It is disingenuous to present this quote as a evidence of a blanket support for suicide bombings.
Click to expand...

Caught out and having to move goalposts again. You're nothing if not predictable.

Galloway supports terrorists by saying the ones he likes are freedom fighters. The others are bad men.

If he is anti war he would not call for Arab armies to come to Iraq and fight against coalition forces. he would try to stop the war and tell everyone to lay down arms. He is a clown who has finally had to take his medicine.

His treatment on Michael Barrymore on Big Brother was despicable.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Ok enlighten me to on all the things i dont know.
Click to expand...

Okay.

1) George Galloway is an ex-MP.
2) The views of the British voting public don't seem as generous towards him as yours are.
3) He's going to have trouble replacing his £200,000 wage and expenses. (expect a "fact-finding" mission to some monied dictator quite soon!).
4) George has been worringly silent about his electoral defeat. Normally it's hard to stop him talking. I hope he's not fallen ill, poor chap.
 
Zuezz, the suicide bombers in Afghanistan are not the French Revolution. They are not spraying acid into the eyes of schoolgirls because an unjust occupation has made them do so. They do it because their ideology and viciousness is deeply embedded and predates the invasion. They aren't the french revolution.
 
WildCat said:
That was the campaign directed at military targets, wasn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really. Mostly aimed at civilian government infrastructure. Why the US chose to blow up a load of empty buildings is a bit of a mystry mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom