Moderated Views on George Galloway.

peteweaver said:
Even more so after he said suicide bombings were justified.
Click to expand...


Where did he say this and in what context did he say it.

Im sure that he gave a very good argument to make a point as controversial as that.

I would imagine it would be along the lines him saying that if an occupying force with up to date top spec weapons and equiptment is massacring a populations families that instead of the bereaved simply bowing out and suffering the same fate they have a right to defend themselves. Since they have no army or good weapons to defend themselves with they are driven to such an unhumain extreme as to blow themselves up in the chance of avenging some of the suffering. A despicable act, yes, but if a person has had his entire family shot by occupying forces then these type of reactions are bound to happen.

Personally I think that a person who decides to avenge the death of loved ones and family members is a much more morally excusable position than killing people due to a misguided foreign policy and sycophantic patriotism. Of course, there are exceptions.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Where did he say this and in what context did he say it.

Im sure that he gave a very good argument to make a point as controversial as that.

I would imagine it would be along the lines him saying that if an occupying force with up to date top spec weapons and equiptment is massacring a populations families that instead of the bereaved simply bowing out and suffering the same fate they have a right to defend themselves. Since they have no army or good weapons to defend themselves with they are driven to such an unhumain extreme as to blow themselves up in the chance of avenging some of the suffering. A despicable act, yes, but if a person has had his entire family shot by occupying forces then these type of reactions are bound to happen.

Personally I think that a person who decides to avenge the death of loved ones and family members is a much more morally excusable position than killing people due to a misguided foreign policy and sycophantic patriotism. Of course, there are exceptions.
Click to expand...


So in essence you are saying that you think suicide bombings are justified too?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Where did he say this and in what context did he say it.

Im sure that he gave a very good argument to make a point as controversial as that.

I would imagine it would be along the lines him saying that if an occupying force with up to date top spec weapons and equiptment is massacring a populations families that instead of the bereaved simply bowing out and suffering the same fate they have a right to defend themselves. Since they have no army or good weapons to defend themselves with they are driven to such an unhumain extreme as to blow themselves up in the chance of avenging some of the suffering. A despicable act, yes, but if a person has had his entire family shot by occupying forces then these type of reactions are bound to happen.

Personally I think that a person who decides to avenge the death of loved ones and family members is a much more morally excusable position than killing people due to a misguided foreign policy and sycophantic patriotism. Of course, there are exceptions.
Click to expand...


Well put. Unfortunately, ideologically-inspired cognitive dissonance makes your clear and simple analysis impossible to understand for many of our resident "skeptics".
 
Ashles said:
So in essence you are saying that you think suicide bombings are justified too?
Click to expand...


No, any act that takes away an innocent life is a despicable reprehensible act in my opinion.

However in the context I put it in, which is unfortunately the context under which the majority of suicide bombings occur, the suicide bombings yes would appear to be a far more justifyable act than the original murders that caused it.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
However in the context I put it in, which is unfortunately the context under which the majority of suicide bombings occur, the suicide bombings yes would appear to be a far more justifyable act than the original murders that caused it.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider both actions unjustifiable?

Can we not find the provocation horrendous and the response? We may understand the response to a certain extent (and who knows what we would be driven to ourselves in the same situations) but that shouldn't mean we have to condone it any more than the action that caused it.
 
Last edited:
Ashles said:
I think we might as well leave those four words as replacing most of your posts.
Click to expand...

Is this your way of denying that your own ideology influences your perceptions?

Ashles said:
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider both actions unjustifiable?

Can we not find the provocation horrendous and the response? We may understand the response to a certain extent (and who knows what we would be driven to ourselves in the same situations) but that shouldn't mean we have to condone it any more than the action that caused it.
Click to expand...


Has Gorgeous G ever claimed that either the provocation or the response wasn't horrendous? He is an anti-war politician, after all.
 
Justifiable homicideWP

Particularly relevant are items 1 and 3 in the list of "excuses".
 
JihadJane said:
Is this your way of denying that your own ideology influences your perceptions?
Click to expand...

Obviously everyone's perceptions are influenced to some extent by their ideologies/beliefs. Only a liar would deny this.

But some are more so than others.

Has Gorgeous G ever claimed that either the provocation or the response wasn't horrendous? He is an anti-war politician, after all.
Click to expand...

Therefore I repeat that neither action should be considered 'justified'.
The suicide bombs could be considered by some to be understandable but clealry some also believe the initial attacks are understandable. (Just for clarity I don't)
 
Ashles said:
Obviously everyone's perceptions are influenced to some extent by their ideologies/beliefs. Only a liar would deny this.

But some are more so than others.
Click to expand...

People whose ideological beliefs support the the status quo tend to believe they are less influenced by their ideology.



Therefore I repeat that neither action should be considered 'justified'.
The suicide bombs could be considered by some to be understandable but clealry some also believe the initial attacks are understandable. (Just for clarity I don't)
Click to expand...

Has Galloway ever called suicide bombings "justified"? I don't know whether he has or not but it seems that the word "justified" is bandied by those seeking to condemn Galloway et al rather than by Galloway himself. It appears to be an ideological reframing game.
 
JihadJane said:
People whose ideological beliefs support the the status quo tend to believe they are less influenced by their ideology.
Click to expand...

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

But, what the heck... evidence please for that statement.

Has Galloway ever called suicide bombings "justified"? I don't know whether he has or not but it seems that the word "justified" is bandied by those seeking to condemn Galloway et al rather than by Galloway himself. It appears to be an ideological reframing game.
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
He is an anti-war politician, after all.
Click to expand...

He's not anti-war. He's pro-war but supports the other side.


JihadJane said:
Has Galloway ever called suicide bombings "justified"?
Click to expand...

Yes.

"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...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...urder-of-blair-would-be-justified-479788.html
 
"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...


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.

But luckily the mossad are nothing more than a corrupt racist terrorist group that work above the law angering Israels neighbours with assassinations and other means to a point where they retaliate; thus providing a prequisite for further Israeli wars, aid, funding and building of new settlements.

My opinion is any assassination is not a good thing. There are however, of course, some very rare occasions where assassination is the best option. For example Hitler. Or Stalin. Numerous others. But the reasons for assination have to be extremely compelling. For example if the imminent death of >1000 innocent people is due to one leader/dictators actions then I dont think that many people would rather that the dictator lives and the innocents die. To work properly the assassination has to be well justified to the general population retrospectively by whoever carries it out, and not cause any sort of rebellion. Nowadays the need for this is so rare that most (respectful) intelligence agencies have a no assassination policy (at least in public).

Now. Applying that logic to Blair and Bush whos decisions were responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples lives ... we are left with a paradox. And also left with the reason that Galloway probably said that statement.

I would not like to pretend I know this is the reason he said that, but I can imagine he would use a similar line of argument.
 
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"
Click to expand...

(Sigh)

You don't even know what "Mossad" means, now do you.
 
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.

But luckily the mossad are nothing more than a corrupt racist terrorist group that work above the law angering Israels neighbours with assassinations and other means to a point where they retaliate; thus providing a prequisite for further Israeli wars, aid, funding and building of new settlements.

My opinion is any assassination is not a good thing. There are however, of course, some very rare occasions where assassination is the best option. For example Hitler. Or Stalin. Numerous others. But the reasons for assination have to be extremely compelling. For example if the imminent death of >1000 innocent people is due to one leader/dictators actions then I dont think that many people would rather that the dictator lives and the innocents die. To work properly the assassination has to be well justified to the general population retrospectively by whoever carries it out, and not cause any sort of rebellion. Nowadays the need for this is so rare that most (respectful) intelligence agencies have a no assassination policy (at least in public).

Now. Applying that logic to Blair and Bush whos decisions were responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent peoples lives ... we are left with a paradox. And also left with the reason that Galloway probably said that statement.

I would not like to pretend I know this is the reason he said that, but I can imagine he would use a similar line of argument.
Click to expand...

Where's the paradox?
 
George Galloway is both:
one of the best and most effective Orators alive; and
a complete buffoon with deeply abhorrant views.
 
Ashles said:
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...


His points are usually more like the following, quote:

"there was a general consensus that we must keep up our guard against the madness, nihilistic, murderous violence of this kind of event that happened today in glasgow airport, and almost happened outside a nightclub in london, but that we can not separate the rage that is producing these attacks from the foreign policy of our govenment. That was the overwhelming opinion of the listeners of the mother of all talk shows, and thats what you would expect; as its just simple common sense."

Is that justifying the bombings?

No.

Its pointing out the most obvious reason as to why they occured.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom