Moderated Views on George Galloway.

[wishface]

I haven't seen his comments regarding the Assange rape case. Do you have a cite for the comments you have in mind?

His 'Moluca Red' youtube channel has him addressing this. You can search it as linking to youtube here doesn't work.

 

[DreadNiK]

if people can't see what George Galloway is, then I don't consider those people's opinions worth much frankly.

Asking 'is George Galloway a complete tool' is akin to asking is 'Alex Jones a nutter' and the only way the answer is no is if somehow it is a giant, genius trolling (which unfortunately it isn't)

 

[Craig B]

if people can't see what George Galloway is, then I don't consider those people's opinions worth much frankly.

Asking 'is George Galloway a complete tool' is akin to asking is 'Alex Jones a nutter' and the only way the answer is no is if somehow it is a giant, genius trolling (which unfortunately it isn't)

Like many self seeking self-publicists Galloway sometimes fastens on really important issues and has interesting things to say about them. It is this characteristic that camouflages his real character as far as some observers of his antics are concerned. But the Big Brother cat episode, let alone the astonishing Saddam admiration declaration, really should put people right.

 

[theprestige]

His 'Moluca Red' youtube channel has him addressing this. You can search it as linking to youtube here doesn't work.

Example YouTube link (not Galloway):


I'm not going to search for Galloway's YT channel. I'm not going to sit through who knows however many minutes of bloviating are necessary to find whatever comments you're referring to.

Is there a transcript?

 

[dudalb]

We don't need to misrepresent Galloway to make him look bad. We just need to quote what he says......

 

[jiggeryqua]

We don't need to misrepresent Galloway to make him look bad. We just need to quote what he says......

...and hold a different opinion. Because we are right and good and proper, and those who say things we mock are bad.

 

[JihadJane]

Galloway does us all a favor again by accurately and entertainingly describing Blue Labour leader Miliband as 'a coward with the backbone of an amoeba'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/26/george-galloway-spat-ed-miliband

 

[Craig B]

Galloway does us all a favor again by accurately and entertainingly describing Blue Labour leader Miliband as 'a coward with the backbone of an amoeba'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/26/george-galloway-spat-ed-miliband

On the other hand he did nobody (or perhaps only one person) a favour in 1994 by indulging in a public discourse from which I have selected the following remarkable expressions:

... I've just spent two weeks in the occupied Palestinian territories. I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support ... I thought the president would appreciate knowing that even today, three years after the war, I still met families who were calling their newborn sons Saddam ... And the Youth Club in Silwan, which is the one of the most resistant of all the villages around Jerusalem, asked me to ask the president's permission if they could enrol him as an honorary member of their club and to present him with this flag from holy Jerusalem ...
Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]

From The Times, January 20, 1994, citing BBC monitoring service at 9 PM on January 19 as its source. Speech to Saddam Hussein, January 19, 1994. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Galloway.

 

[JihadJane]

On the other hand he did nobody (or perhaps only one person) a favour in 1994 by indulging in a public discourse from which I have selected the following remarkable expressions: From The Times, January 20, 1994, citing BBC monitoring service at 9 PM on January 19 as its source. Speech to Saddam Hussein, January 19, 1994. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Galloway.

Yawn.

As poster kgbgb commented on the Guardian Milliband article

"George Galloway has been a long time opponent of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, including in the eighties, when Saddam was the bully of choice in the West, lauded for his invasion of Iran.

Galloway met Saddam in 1995, with two purposes, both directed towards the Iraqi people; to convey the thanks of the Gazan Palestinians for Iraqi support, and to try an help broker a deal that would end the sanctions that were causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi children.

His "salute" to Saddam has, of course, been taken out of contextual meaning. Spoken in English, it was translated by an intepreter into Arabic for Saddam. The interpreter conveyed the context; the "you" being saluted was correctly translated as the plural pronoun, meaning the Iraqi people, not Saddam personally. This is consistent with the tone of his full address, which referenced Iraqis, not Saddam."

How would you have approached Saddam Hussein in these circumstances, Craig B?

 

[Craig B]

Yawn.

As poster kgbgb commented on the Guardian Milliband article

"George Galloway has been a long time opponent of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, including in the eighties, when Saddam was the bully of choice in the West, lauded for his invasion of Iran.

Galloway met Saddam in 1995, with two purposes, both directed towards the Iraqi people; to convey the thanks of the Gazan Palestinians for Iraqi support, and to try an help broker a deal that would end the sanctions that were causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi children.

His "salute" to Saddam has, of course, been taken out of contextual meaning. Spoken in English, it was translated by an intepreter into Arabic for Saddam. The interpreter conveyed the context; the "you" being saluted was correctly translated as the plural pronoun, meaning the Iraqi people, not Saddam personally. This is consistent with the tone of his full address, which referenced Iraqis, not Saddam."

How would you have approached Saddam Hussein in these circumstances, Craig B?

I would not have approached him at all. Your source, Guardian poster kgbgb, is being "disingenuous", if I may use that polite term, in stating that the tone of his address referenced Iraqis, not Saddam. Whatever may be as regards the "tone", the words uttered by Galloway clearly also reference Saddam. I have given examples:

I thought the president would appreciate knowing that even today, three years after the war, I still met families who were calling their newborn sons Saddam ... And the Youth Club in Silwan, which is the one of the most resistant of all the villages around Jerusalem, asked me to ask the president's permission if they could enrol him as an honorary member of their club and to present him with this flag from holy Jerusalem ...

There was no need for this sickening stuff to be uttered in front of TV cameras and microphones, or to be uttered at all for that matter. But if this question bores you and makes you yawn, then why pursue it?

 

[squealpiggy]

Yawn.

As poster kgbgb commented on the Guardian Milliband article

"George Galloway has been a long time opponent of the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, including in the eighties, when Saddam was the bully of choice in the West, lauded for his invasion of Iran.

Galloway met Saddam in 1995, with two purposes, both directed towards the Iraqi people; to convey the thanks of the Gazan Palestinians for Iraqi support, and to try an help broker a deal that would end the sanctions that were causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi children.

His "salute" to Saddam has, of course, been taken out of contextual meaning. Spoken in English, it was translated by an intepreter into Arabic for Saddam. The interpreter conveyed the context; the "you" being saluted was correctly translated as the plural pronoun, meaning the Iraqi people, not Saddam personally. This is consistent with the tone of his full address, which referenced Iraqis, not Saddam."

How would you have approached Saddam Hussein in these circumstances, Craig B?

He spoke the words in English and they were translated. He was clearly addressing Saddam and not Iraq as a nation.

 

[JihadJane]

I would not have approached him at all. Your source, Guardian poster kgbgb, is being "disingenuous", if I may use that polite term, in stating that the tone of his address referenced Iraqis, not Saddam. Whatever may be as regards the "tone", the words uttered by Galloway clearly also reference Saddam. I have given examples: There was no need for this sickening stuff to be uttered in front of TV cameras and microphones, or to be uttered at all for that matter. But if this question bores you and makes you yawn, then why pursue it?

Doing nothing to stop the hundreds of thousands of children being killing by UN sanctions and inventing reality to suit your prejudices would be easier, yes. Your moral stance is impressive!

What's your view of other politicians who had love-ins with Saddam so they could sell him arms?

He spoke the words in English and they were translated. He was clearly addressing Saddam and not Iraq as a nation.

"Let's be perfectly clear" is a catch phrase often uttered by politicians to announce they the are lying, obfuscating or simply haven't a clue what they're talking about. How did you reach your conclusion that Galloway "was clearly addressing Saddam"? What's your evidence, squealpiggy?

 

[squealpiggy]

"Let's be perfectly clear" is a catch phrase often uttered by politicians to announce they the are lying, obfuscating or simply haven't a clue what they're talking about. How did you reach your conclusion that Galloway "was clearly addressing Saddam"? What's your evidence, squealpiggy?

The words as spoken, in English by Galloway to Saddam Hussein in which he addressed Saddam by name.

Claiming that the words relayed in Farsi to Saddam were a mistranslation is a staggering bit of revisionism, even for you.

 

[Craig B]

Doing nothing to stop the hundreds of thousands of children being killing by UN sanctions and inventing reality to suit your prejudices would be easier, yes. Your moral stance is impressive!

I don't know what you are talking about. You have explained to us the errands which brought Galloway into Saddam's presence.

to convey the thanks of the Gazan Palestinians for Iraqi support

This could have been done more appropriately by a Palestinian. It is not an urgent matter requiring direct communication between Galloway and Saddam.

to try an help broker a deal that would end the sanctions that were causing the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi children.

Now, tell me why that entails public declarations like this, even if it was addressed to the Iraqi people:

Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]

Is this the language of a person trying to broker a deal about UN sanctions? In what way do these words advance such a cause? Far less still do these following words advance it!

I can honestly tell you that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt, fraternal greetings and support ... I thought the president would appreciate knowing that even today, three years after the war, I still met families who were calling their newborn sons Saddam ...

That can't possibly help to broker any deal, and it is not addressed to the Iraqi people, unless they're all called Saddam.

What's your view of other politicians who had love-ins with Saddam so they could sell him arms?

Look at the things I have written and tell me which of them indicates that I would take a favourable view of that conduct. It is not I who praise and flatter Saddam! It's Galloway who does that.

"Let's be perfectly clear" is a catch phrase often uttered by politicians to announce they the are lying, obfuscating or simply haven't a clue what they're talking about. How did you reach your conclusion that Galloway "was clearly addressing Saddam"? What's your evidence, squealpiggy?

The evidence is in the words I have quoted about naming babies after Saddam, and stuff like that, as I hope squealpiggy will agree.

 

[WildCat]

...and hold a different opinion. Because we are right and good and proper, and those who say things we mock are bad.

Right, whether someone thinks a genocidal anti-Semitic group is good or bad is just a matter of opinion. Just like whether you think Nazis are good or bad, it's just opinion. Some people, after all, think the world would be a better place without Jews, and some disagree. No need to get upset about an opinion, there's no "right" or "wrong" opinion.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Right, whether someone thinks a genocidal anti-Semitic group is good or bad is just a matter of opinion. Just like whether you think Nazis are good or bad, it's just opinion. Some people, after all, think the world would be a better place without Jews, and some disagree. No need to get upset about an opinion, there's no "right" or "wrong" opinion.

Sorry, are you saying Galloway's a Nazi? (I'm letting the 'you' go in that one, it's far too easy to take offence and far too easy to reply "I meant the impersonal 'you'").

One of the real positive points of this forum is that it doesn't outlaw opinions, however appalling they may be to most of us. That's because opinions aren't "right" or "wrong", however fond you are of yours and no matter how distasteful some are to you (there's a big clue there in the word 'distasteful'). You can legislate against the expression of some opinions, should you have the means and the will, but that would only make them 'legal' and 'illegal'. You can contribute to the social acceptance of some opinions, but that still doesn't make them 'right' or 'wrong' - it just makes them 'acceptable here, among us' or 'unacceptable here, only they say that sort of thing'.

I understand that some people can find this sort of thing quite difficult to accept. In their minds, they are (of course) absolutely, positively, unarguably right. Naturally enough, those who disagree with them are completely, obviously, indisputably wrong. But you only have to consider for a moment that the other fellow thinks just as you do: "I am right".

So, Galloway is neither right nor wrong (at least, not if you want either word to retain any useful meaning). Instead, we either 'agree' or 'disagree' with Galloway. Do you see?

 

[WildCat]

Sorry, are you saying Galloway's a Nazi? (I'm letting the 'you' go in that one, it's far too easy to take offence and far too easy to reply "I meant the impersonal 'you'").

He openly supports a group (Hamas) which openly states their desire to fulfill god's wish by killing all the Jews.

No different than Nazis really, and no doubt you'd likewise refuse to condemn a politician who openly supports Nazis because it's just an opinion, right?

One of the real positive points of this forum is that it doesn't outlaw opinions, however appalling they may be to most of us. That's because opinions aren't "right" or "wrong", however fond you are of yours and no matter how distasteful some are to you (there's a big clue there in the word 'distasteful').

That's what I said. If someone thinks all the Jews should be killed it's not "right" or "wrong", it's just an opinion. No need to condemn them for it.

You can legislate against the expression of some opinions, should you have the means and the will, but that would only make them 'legal' and 'illegal'. You can contribute to the social acceptance of some opinions, but that still doesn't make them 'right' or 'wrong' - it just makes them 'acceptable here, among us' or 'unacceptable here, only they say that sort of thing'.

I am against legislating against any and all opinions and the expression of them, even if it's burning poppies on Remembrance Day.

I understand that some people can find this sort of thing quite difficult to accept. In their minds, they are (of course) absolutely, positively, unarguably right. Naturally enough, those who disagree with them are completely, obviously, indisputably wrong. But you only have to consider for a moment that the other fellow thinks just as you do: "I am right".

Exactly, saying that all Jews should be killed isn't right or wrong, it's just an opinion.

So, Galloway is neither right nor wrong (at least, not if you want either word to retain any useful meaning). Instead, we either 'agree' or 'disagree' with Galloway. Do you see?

Of course he's not, he's just a fervent supporter of an openly genocidal group that wants to kill all the Jews. No need to get emotional over an opinion, after all Hamas does other things besides striving to kill all the Jews. They feed the hungry and kill homosexuals and oppress women too, they're not one-dimensional.

 

[Craig B]

Sorry, are you saying Galloway's a Nazi?

For the moment, please let me ignore the rest of our post. Personally, I do not think Galloway is a Nazi, and I don't think he's an anti-Semite either, although I find him quite execrable, in general.

 

[JihadJane]

The words as spoken, in English by Galloway to Saddam Hussein in which he addressed Saddam by name.

Claiming that the words relayed in Farsi to Saddam were a mistranslation is a staggering bit of revisionism, even for you.

I claimed no such thing.

I also wager you know next to nothing about me

I don't know what you are talking about.

I'm talking about your concern trolling and the apparent belief in the moral purity of doing nothing.

You have explained to us the errands which brought Galloway into Saddam's presence. This could have been done more appropriately by a Palestinian. It is not an urgent matter requiring direct communication between Galloway and Saddam.

Galloway was present as a representative of the British people, trying to prevent a war that would kill hundreds of thousands of people and destroy a modern, technologically advanced, secular society with a very high standard of literacy and healthcare. He had been, and still is, a major defender of the Palestinian people so it is entirely appropriate that he should convey their thanks for Iraq's support.

"I was trying to stop a disastrous war. I wanted to convey the feeling of the Iraqi people - that they should extend an olive branch to Great Britain," he said.

"I had spent many years trying to do that. That's why I asked Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back in."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4016803.stm

Now, tell me why that entails public declarations like this, even if it was addressed to the Iraqi people: Is this the language of a person trying to broker a deal about UN sanctions? In what way do these words advance such a cause? Far less still do these following words advance it! That can't possibly help to broker any deal, and it is not addressed to the Iraqi people, unless they're all called Saddam.

The words were part of an appeal to a brutal dictator, a dictator that Galloway had condemned as a brutal dictator many years before anyone else did. The words are examples of the dirty art of diplomacy.

Look at the things I have written and tell me which of them indicates that I would take a favourable view of that conduct.

I asked you a simple question. I wasn't accusing you of anything. Perhaps you'd like to answer the question now. I look forward to reading your passionate and contemptuous condemnations of the various high-profile politicians, diplomats and businessmen who cozied up to Saddam and his regime.

It is not I who praise and flatter Saddam! It's Galloway who does that.The evidence is in the words I have quoted about naming babies after Saddam, and stuff like that, as I hope squealpiggy will agree.

Your interpretation ignores Galloway's consistent condemnation of Saddam Hussein over many decades and, appears to be informed by ignorant, politically motivated spin rather than any actual knowledge of what Galloway was doing in Iraq.

Palestinians were doing exactly what Galloway said they were doing. As one of the most powerful defenders of the Palestinian people Hussein was very popular in Palestine. They were grateful for his help.

 

[Craig B]

@JihadJane

I do not indulge in "concern trolling". I really am concerned. And personally I have no question in this matter to answer at your behest, about western contacts with that tyrant. Nor have I any intention of permitting myself to be distracted from the matter in hand.