Moderated Views on George Galloway.

George Galloway speaks to a religious fundamentalist


Galloway and caller debate David Icke


:D

Listening to george outwit every caller that calls in is a most entertaining spectacle.
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
Hundreds of thousands? How many were killed in the Gulf War in iraq?

How many did Saddam kill before and after the Gulf war?

How much money did George try to hide going to his "charity" was coming from iraqi admin?
Click to expand...


So considering this is not answering the question of whether George supports or supported sadam hussein, I presume you conceed he does not?

Anyone who is a suicide bomber is a religious fanatic.
Click to expand...


And anyone who is a stealth bomber is a patriotic fanatic. Theres no moral difference.
 
I'm still struggling for any valid reasons why Galloways such a bad guy.... :)
 
Zeuzzz said:
So considering this is not answering the question of whether George supports or supported sadam hussein, I presume you conceed he does not?
Click to expand...

Galloway makes a show of the fact that he didn't support Saddam when Saddam's interests were aligned with the west. But he did support Saddam when Saddam was at odds with the west. The only constancy in any of Galloway's foreign policy is an unremitting hostility towards the west.
 
Arcade22 said:
If you could look at him without your ideologically-tinted glasses perhaps you actually see something bad about him...
Click to expand...


Maybe if you were going to a useful addition to this discussion you could actually post something of substance?
 
Ziggurat said:
But he did support Saddam when Saddam was at odds with the west.
Click to expand...


I'm not so sure of this. Evidence?

And if true, I would wager he had good intentioned reasons.

The only constancy in any of Galloway's foreign policy is an unremitting hostility towards the west.
Click to expand...


Maybe this is based on reasonable grounds and from what he has witnessed in his over twenty years in politics?
 
Zeuzzz said:
I'm not so sure of this. Evidence?
Click to expand...

Galloway's own words. Whenever he talks about how he opposed Saddam, he always makes specific reference to the fact that others in the west were supporting Saddam while the noble Galloway was opposed to him. The implication he's trying to make is that he was principled and our governments are hypocritical for opposing Saddam, with the secondary effect that it serves to hide his later support for Saddam. But the pattern is in plain sight: Galloway's position on Saddam was always in opposition to the west. He switched from opposing Saddam to supporting Saddam as soon as Saddam became overtly hostile to the west.

And if true, I would wager he had good intentioned reasons.
Click to expand...

Sure, and so did Stalin.

Maybe this is based on reasonable grounds and from what he has witnessed in his over twenty years in politics?
Click to expand...

Are you saying you agree with his steadfast hostility to the west?
 
Ziggurat said:
Galloway's own words. Whenever he talks about how he opposed Saddam, he always makes specific reference to the fact that others in the west were supporting Saddam while the noble Galloway was opposed to him. The implication he's trying to make is that he was principled and our governments are hypocritical for opposing Saddam, with the secondary effect that it serves to hide his later support for Saddam. But the pattern is in plain sight: Galloway's position on Saddam was always in opposition to the west. He switched from opposing Saddam to supporting Saddam as soon as Saddam became overtly hostile to the west.
Click to expand...


This is the issue here: He does not support Sadam and never really did! He went there to discuss humanitarian issues while the west were selling him guns, and yes, shoock his hand. Big woo.

Now the reason that people think that he supports(ed) Sadam is that he was fully against the war. Everything is not black and white. Being against the war does not make you pro Sadam, even if you think it was best he was still in power rather than the terrible war that happened. He was a staunch supporter of simply pointing out that the reasons for the war were fabricated and Sadam had no WMD's (true) and that invading Iraq would create more support for Al-Queda (true) and would stir up far more trouble than good, true!

He clarifies this very well in this clip:

He does not supprt Sadam, he just points out the obvious; that Iraq is in a far worse state after the war than it was under Sadam.

Sure, and so did Stalin.
Click to expand...


Irrelivant.

Are you saying you agree with his steadfast hostility to the west?
Click to expand...


When he backs it up with facts, yes. I have yet to see him make unfounded allegations.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
This is the issue here: He does not support Sadam and never really did! He went there to discuss humanitarian issues while the west were selling him guns, and yes, shoock his hand. Big woo.
Click to expand...

He did more than shake hands, he sang the man's praise. Which amounts to as much support as his opposition to Saddam ever amounted to.

Now the reason that people think that he supports(ed) Sadam is that he was fully against the war. Everything is not black and white.
Click to expand...

No, of course it's not black and white. But for Galloway, it is pro- and anti-west. And Galloway is reliably anti-west. You haven't put forward any argument that I'm wrong about that.

When he backs it up with facts, yes. I have yet to see him make unfounded allegations.
Click to expand...

Then you have a remarkably poor memory. I showed you an example in this very thread, where he denied the existence of any evidence that anyone was killed in the Tiananmen square massacre.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
He did more than shake hands, he sang the man's praise. Which amounts to as much support as his opposition to Saddam ever amounted to.
Click to expand...


Well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Iraq_and_Saddam_Hussein
In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein "to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war". At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and ended his speech with the phrase "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability,"[50] although Galloway maintains that he was misinterpreted. Galloway's most recent public statement on the matter was in a January 2007 edition of the BBC's Hardtalk in which he states that he was saluting the "Iraqi people".[5] Galloway's speech was translated for Hussein, and Anasal-Tikriti, a friend of Galloways and a Respect candidate, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain said: "I understand Arabic and it [Galloway's salutation] was taken completely out of context. When he said "you" he meant the Iraqi people, he was saluting their indefatigability, their resolve against sanctions. Even the interpreter got it right and, in Arabic, says salutes the stand of the Iraqi people'."[51]
Click to expand...


Then you have a remarkably poor memory. I showed you an example in this very thread, where he denied the existence of any evidence that anyone was killed in the Tiananmen square massacre.
Click to expand...


I'll get back to you on that one. I might be wrong about this, and so might george. We'll see in due course.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I'll get back to you on that one. I might be wrong about this, and so might george. We'll see in due course.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, he might be wrong? That video I linked to has photos of dead bodies from the massacre, and it's not exactly hard to find more photos of the dead from the massacre either. Yet he claimed there wasn't a single one. No, Zeuzzz: Galloway IS wrong. And a liar to boot.
 
Ziggurat said:
What do you mean, he might be wrong? That video I linked to has photos of dead bodies from the massacre, and it's not exactly hard to find more photos of the dead from the massacre either. Yet he claimed there wasn't a single one. No, Zeuzzz: Galloway IS wrong. And a liar to boot.
Click to expand...


So this is what its come down to? One quote he made on a talk show years ago that may or may not be factually inaccurate. Not really a killer blow, eh?

I doubt he would deny that no-one died that day, even if thats what he said then. But I'll look into it and get back as I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom