Moderated Views on George Galloway.

[ComsatAngel2017]

Now that he no longer even has to keep up a semblance of any appearance of decency, chances are Galloway will be officially shilling for some tinpot dictator for the money any day now. Certainly Saddam got his money's worth for the $300,000 or so he paid him in oil-for-food money.

Beat you to it! See Item 3 in post 669. Even now, George's mobile is glowing red-hot with calls to various third world countries ...

 

[Skeptic]

OK, who wants to take bets on which dictator he's going to be a shill for now?

My bet's on Syria or Iran, but there's such a rich field of genocidal thugs our brave "human rights" crusader can choose from...

 

[Pardalis]

Kadhafi, I can imagine both of them in leotards drinking champagne coolies, doing eachothers toenails

 

[Stout]

Just like if there had been the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence to prosecute Galloway for, I dunno, giving money and support to a murderous terrorist organization like Hamas, they would have jumped on it.

But he's still not in jail, so I guess all that stuff was an hallucination.

I'm curious as t why he wasn't charged with anything for that. Canada refused him entry to the country for specifically that reason. The far left, of course went ballistic as they see him as their golden boy in their war against, against..err, white people.

 

[geni]

OK, who wants to take bets on which dictator he's going to be a shill for now?

My bet's on Syria or Iran, but there's such a rich field of genocidal thugs our brave "human rights" crusader can choose from...

The market for former MP's is kinda saturated right now. If you reall feel the need to buy one (perhaps you feel they match the curtains) there are better choices.

 

[Ashles]

Which goalposts have I moved?

Ideologies have an effect on our interpretation of events.

Rather than simply agree with this (which would of course lead to the obvious acceptance that this would apply to you as well) you decided to change the subject to relative levels of ideological effect versus status quo.

As though it were even vaguely relevant to the discussion of defending suicide bombings. Which it isn't.

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

And then provided a link which didn't work.

It may have been slightly less disengenuous to accept that your beliefs shape your ideologies. Like anyone else.
But clearly you won't. And then even scrabble around to sort of try to imply your ideologies are less influenced because you are somehow less for the Status Quo.
Interesting.
Whatever that link does or doesn't show, you sure aren't evidence towards it.

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

And now we have a strawman to act as goalkeeper to your moving goalposts.
Nobody said 'blanket supprt'.
But he clearly has defended in principle suicide bombing in certain circumstances.

The whole point of my comments (which I am not surprised you have forgotten with all your manouvering to change the subject and talk about irrelevencies) was that suicide bombings should not ever be considered justifiable.

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

There is also the small fact it should be considered abhorrent someone is blowing themselves up.

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.

No - that would be consistent in order to follow your argumernt. Which we are not.
In order to be consistent one has to condemn all suicide bombing.
There that wasn't difficult was it?

 

[Zach Aviv]

OK, who wants to take bets on which dictator he's going to be a shill for now?

My bet's on Syria or Iran, but there's such a rich field of genocidal thugs our brave "human rights" crusader can choose from...

Galloway, an intelligent man, was a handicap to our cause Skeptic. You should not worry about him any more. We Jews used our power in the Labour party to remove him. You will be pleased I know. His performance in front of the senate was admirable but he is an impotent gentile now. He was ridiculed in the UK because of the Big Brother TV program. We orchestrated that. One of our more off the wall results.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Even now, George's mobile is glowing red-hot with calls to various third world countries ...

Yes indeed, charity work and funding for war torn people in poorer third world countries take up a considerable amount of his time. He's done some really good work.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Zuezzz, how do you feel about Galloway's suport for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of 2 Million Afghans? Why didn't he care for Human rights then?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I dont know, I did not know that this was his opinion. I'm not George Galloway myself you know.

If you could elaborate a bit more and explain why his opinion is so bad I might be able to see why he said it. This is an area of history (late soviet union) im admittedly quite ignorant of, though since George lived through it I'm sure he knows the facts.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's the hypocrisy Zuezzz. Galloway decries an invasion of Middle Eastern nations today, frequently acting in a self righteous manner by declaring those who support such wars as 'having the blood of X number of X', while previously supporting a palpably unjust, imperialist war which led to the deaths of 2 Million Afghans, the displacement of 5 Million more, and the birth of the Taliban.

Can you not see how he has little integrity?

 

[JihadJane]

It was a sucidide bombing. It took place in afganistan. It took place before the invasion. Post hoc goalpost shifting is not a valid responce.

I'd say you are nit-picking, actually, about one isolated incident. Suicide bombing wasn't a tactic used in Afghanistan before the invasion and occupation.

It would be impossible to say that the recent suicide bombings in Pakistan were the Taliban 'resisting an unjust occupation'. It's the same organisation that murders people in Afghanistan, and it isn't motivated by the injustice of an invasion.

The Taliban aren't the French resistance.

Sorry, your approach is Cowboys-and-Indians simplistic:

'Taliban: The Indistinguishable Enemy

The US-led occupation of Afghanistan has transformed the once-reviled Taliban into freedom fighters for the Pashtun people'

Due to US control of the government and the rampant US slaughter of civilians by drone invasion most Pakistanis now consider the US to be an enemy within their borders.

Times Square Bomber Popped a Bubble
Not surprisingly, since we are conducting a virtual war inside their country, 64 percent of Pakistanis view the United States as an enemy.

 

[JihadJane]

Ideologies have an effect on our interpretation of events.

Rather than simply agree with this (which would of course lead to the obvious acceptance that this would apply to you as well) you decided to change the subject to relative levels of ideological effect versus status quo.

As though it were even vaguely relevant to the discussion of defending suicide bombings. Which it isn't.

Ideological beliefs are relevant to all political subjects and to suicide bombing in particular, which is a favorite toy of ideologically-inspired propagandists.

I made a general comment about the futility of Zeuzzz' efforts to introduce objectivity into the discussion. You then personalized the issue.

Everyone's perceptions are influenced by their ideological beliefs. What are so special about mine?

Furthermore, I very much doubt that you even know what my ideological beliefs are.

And then provided a link which didn't work.

Works fine for me.

It may have been slightly less disengenuous to accept that your beliefs shape your ideologies. Like anyone else.
But clearly you won't. And then even scrabble around to sort of try to imply your ideologies are less influenced because you are somehow less for the Status Quo.
Interesting.
Whatever that link does or doesn't show, you sure aren't evidence towards it.

See above

And now we have a strawman to act as goalkeeper to your moving goalposts.
Nobody said 'blanket supprt'.

Rubbish. The proposition is that Galloway justifies suicide bombing, i.e. blanket support.

But he clearly has defended in principle suicide bombing in certain circumstances.

In one particular circumstance: an assassination with no "collateral damage".

The whole point of my comments (which I am not surprised you have forgotten with all your manouvering to change the subject and talk about irrelevencies) was that suicide bombings should not ever be considered justifiable.

Why not?

There is also the small fact it should be considered abhorrent someone is blowing themselves up.

Why? It's their life.


Is it any more abhorrent that someone else blowing them up?

No - that would be consistent in order to follow your argumernt. Which we are not.
In order to be consistent one has to condemn all suicide bombing.
There that wasn't difficult was it?

Why do you condemn all suicide bombing? Sacrificing one's life for a common cause is seen as heroic when "our" side does it.


~~~~~~~~~

It's the hypocrisy Zuezzz. Galloway decries an invasion of Middle Eastern nations today, frequently acting in a self righteous manner by declaring those who support such wars as 'having the blood of X number of X', while previously supporting a palpably unjust, imperialist war which led to the deaths of 2 Million Afghans, the displacement of 5 Million more, and the birth of the Taliban.

Can you not see how he has little integrity?

Can you provide a link to where Galloway supported the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? I'm not saying he didn't but I would like to see the context. It wasn't an uncommon position when Russia first acted to protect the Afghan government.

It would also be helpful if you provided a link to where Galloway defends his stance.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Sorry, your approach is Cowboys-and-Indians simplistic:

'Taliban: The Indistinguishable Enemy

It's really not. Jihadism is extremely complex, and doesn't come down to either an issue of them being blood-thirsty murderers who are born evil or poor divided people fighting against an unjust enemy. Those are neither of my positions.

(No idea why that is underlined)

The US-led occupation of Afghanistan has transformed the once-reviled Taliban into freedom fighters for the Pashtun people'

Due to US control of the government and the rampant US slaughter of civilians by drone invasion most Pakistanis now consider the US to be an enemy within their borders.

Times Square Bomber Popped a Bubble
Not surprisingly, since we are conducting a virtual war inside their country, 64 percent of Pakistanis view the United States as an enemy.

Yet the Taliban are deeply unpopular in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If the Taliban cared so much about the murder of those in Pakistan, why do they keep murdering innocent people in their hundreds in Islamabad?

Why didn't the Times Square Bomber go and attack the Taliban?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Incidently, here is Galloway denying the Tiananmen Square Massacre:



And the genocide in Darfur:

 

[Ashles]

blah

It's interesting how you continuously seem happy to disagree with the poistions of others while being so strangely reticent to comment on your own.

I guess we'll leave it that I personally find all suicide bombing abhorrent and unjustifiable and you... appear to enjoy arguing for its own sake.

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Yes indeed, charity work and funding for war torn people in poorer third world countries take up a considerable amount of his time. He's done some really good work.

The voting public don't think so.

(Dunno if parading around on Big Brother counts as "charity work").

 

[Skeptic]

Incidently, here is Galloway denying the Tiananmen Square Massacre:

And the genocide in Darfur:

...and supporting the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and...

Galloway's definitions of "human rights" is "let the dictators kill anybody they feel like! What's the big deal, you EVIL IMPERIALISTS!"

 

[Pardalis]

Zuezzz, how do you feel about Galloway's suport for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of 2 Million Afghans? Why didn't he care for Human rights then?

 

[Skeptic]

(Dunno if parading around on Big Brother counts as "charity work").

Well, it probably made many people who considered going on the show to reconsider and do something more useful with their lives...