Galloway: Bombing Blair 'justified'

[CptStern]

no but he did sign the death warrents of thousands of iraqis when he agreed to invasion ..he knew it was a sham before they invaded

 

[Raziaar]

no but he did sign the death warrents of thousands of iraqis when he agreed to invasion ..he knew it was a sham before they invaded

Why do people commit to the murder of somebody in such a situation if they don't even believe serial killers should get the death penalty or anything like that?

Politically motivated murder is no more justified than state sanctioned murder of criminals.

 

[baxter]

What doesnt come across in his speeches? That he is a politician?
I dont understand what you are saying Stern.

Im not saying that he isnt what he seems or that hes not genuine in what he says. He gets it alright, but he is a politician first not a thinker(as his appearence on big brother would attest to).

SAJ,

As a politician he has to be thinker. He has to understand, that whatever he says is reaching a very wide audience. As such he cannot go around saying this sort of thing and sugar coat if over by saying “I’m not actually calling for it, I just think it is justifiable"

His words reach thousands, if not millions. The majority of who will simply dismiss it as a slip of the tongue, or whatever excuse he chooses to put on it. But a minority will see it differently, a small minority who are just looking for the excuse and justification.Heres a politician handing it to them on a silver plate.

The point is, as a promoter of peace he should not even be suggesting it is anyway morally justifiable. He should be condemning it outright. As a politician it is his job and position to do so.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Galloway is a complete arsehole, and you should never try and connect morals and terrorism. He also does a ****ing disturbing cat impression

 

[CptStern]

Why do people commit to the murder of somebody in such a situation if they don't even believe serial killers should get the death penalty or anything like that?

I'm not following you here

Politically motivated murder is no more justified than state sanctioned murder of criminals.

that distinction holds little weight to the people that would carry out the murder ..however I'm not justifying assassination so it doesnt really apply here

 

[baxter]

How does that at all invalidate my argument? No-one, neither me nor Mr.Galloway is supporting the killing of innocent bystanders. Infact the posed question was:

Mr Galloway was asked whether the assassination of Mr Blair by a suicide bomber would be justified, if there were no other casualties.

The concept that you can completely change what I'm supporting into something different and use the consequences of that to counter what I'm saying is preposterous.

A much simpler and less provocative answer would have been “No I condemn it totally"

But hey, guess there's no mileage in such simple straight forward answer.

 

[SAJ]

Two post edited together;

which doesnt come across in his anti-war speeches ..but from past comments from people from the UK I sort of got that impression......................that he's a shamelss self promoter

Ok , I get what you're saying now.
I must say though, that if GG doesnt come across to you as a self publicist then you must have some really hardcore politicians in your neck of the woods.

Anyway, I wasnt trying to nit pick with you, its just I dont think it would be fair to consider Galloway a part of the group you mentioned(Zinn, Chomsky Roy), thats all.


edit;

As a politician he has to be thinker. He has to understand, that whatever he says is reaching a very wide audience. As such he cannot go around saying this sort of thing and sugar coat if over by saying “I’m not actually calling for it, I just think it is justifiable"

My reason for making the dinstinction between "thinker"(intelectual) and (career) "politician" is about clarity only, not as an apology.

 

[CptStern]

fair enough ..oh and you can see what I mean if you browse the alternative radio program I linked to ..also listen to this internet broadcast every Monday and Wednesday at 5pm est (wednesdays are directly from the Alternative radio broadcasts, which are mostly pay to listen broadcasts on their website ...so free is better)

http://www.ciut.fm/events.html

hit the listen button





oh and for the most part our politicians are spineless, ineffectual yes men to big busness ..we havent had anyone charismatic since trudeau. Our current PM is a is about as exciting as creamed asparagus

 

[el Chi]

If he's going to help kill another 30,000+ civillians in Iran, then assasination is a legitimate tactic to save that many lives. It wouldn't work however, someone would just replace him.

So essentially you rebutt your point straight away.
Surely it's obvious that an assassination is more likely to reflect badly on your cause than actually further it? As you yourself say, someone else will replace them.
One step forward, two steps back.

You can't call him an attention seeker or whatever for this, it was an interview and he was asked, and thus answered a question. He didn't organise a press conference to announce it.

Nor did he have to give such a blatantly sensationalist answer.
The man's not a complete idiot, he knew perfectly well what he was saying.

 

[Solaris]

A much simpler and less provocative answer would have been “No I condemn it totally"

But hey, guess there's no mileage in such simple straight forward answer.

But he doesn't comdem it totally, thats the whole point.

So essentially you rebutt your point straight away.
Surely it's obvious that an assassination is more likely to reflect badly on your cause than actually further it? As you yourself say, someone else will replace them.
One step forward, two steps back.

I agree, and so does Mr.Galloway that assasinating Tony Blair would do more harm that good. That's why neither of us are calling for it.

Nor did he have to give such a blatantly sensationalist answer.
The man's not a complete idiot, he knew perfectly well what he was saying.

It's not. It's an answer, and one I agree with.

From the point of view of someone who has seen their country invaded and their family blown apart it’s possible, of course, for them to construct a moral justification. But I’ve made my position clear. I would not support anyone seeking to assassinate the Prime Minister. That’s why I said in the interview I would report to the authorities any such plot that I knew of.

 

[el Chi]

It's not. It's an answer, and one I agree with.

If you think that it was a serious answer and not one intended to generate the furore it has (and quite obviously would) and also consider it to be a reasonable answer, then I know full well that there is not a jot I can do to even come close to changing your mind.
I suspect only Galloway could do that.

 

[Solaris]

If you think that it was a serious answer and not one intended to generate the furore it has (and quite obviously would) and also consider it to be a reasonable answer, then I know full well that there is not a jot I can do to even come close to changing your mind.
I suspect only Galloway could do that.

He was being interviewed by a magazine. It's a big article spanning several pages, they asked him the question and he answered. It's only causing such outrage becuase of the spin on it by the media.

 

[Raziaar]

He was being interviewed by a magazine. It's a big article spanning several pages, they asked him the question and he answered. It's only causing such outrage becuase of the spin on it by the media.

I would think the 'content' of what he said caused the outrage... not the 'spin'.

No matter which way you spin it, it still sounds bad.

 

[Solaris]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]"Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened I believe it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did."

Which part of that do you disagree with?
[/FONT]

 

[Raziaar]

Which part of that do you disagree with?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

The fact that it's morally justified.

It's not.

 

[kirovman]

George Galloway being assassinated would be about as morally justified as Tony Blair being assassinated.

 

[CptStern]

heh he didnt send anyone to their deaths

 

[Raziaar]

heh he didnt send anyone to their deaths

There's a difference between sending people to combat, and sending them to their knowing deaths.

Try to see that.

 

[CptStern]

There's a difference between sending people to combat, and sending them to their knowing deaths.

Try to see that.

he sent them knowingly to their deaths ..blair knew it was a sham before invasion ..there is no disputing that

 

[Solaris]

The fact that it's morally justified.

It's not.

You're reading it in the wrong context:

"From the point of view of someone who has seen their country invaded and their family blown apart it's possible, of course, for them to construct a moral justification."
He said that during the interview.

 

[Lemonking]

insanity has nothing to do with" reading in context"

are you in your right mind Danny?

 

[Solaris]

insanity has nothing to do with" reading in context"

are you in your right mind Danny?

He's not insane at all, and neither am I. I'm not crazy....everyone else is crazy.

 

[Lemonking]

Im implying you are crazy,I mean Duh,Do you what you arew saying?
and having UDSR avatar makes even look more crazy.Thats like me having a swa sticka avatar,you support the killing of people,then you are no better then the
people you despise.

 

[Solaris]

Im implying you are crazy,I mean Duh,Do you what you arew saying?
and having UDSR avatar makes even look more crazy.Thats like me having a swa sticka avatar,you support the killing of people,then you are no better then the
people you despise.

The Idealism of the Soviet Union in it's creation goes on today.
Post-Lenin the USSR ceased to be communist, I do not support that. The russian revulotion was imo a great event and that is what the flag represents, not the crimes commited in it's name by Stalin ect.

 

[Lemonking]

so you thinlk Lenin didn't commit crimes?

like putting everyone that didnt agree with revolution in a dark dungeon never to be seen again? or killing the whole Zar family,women and children included?

 

[Solaris]

so you thinlk Lenin didn't commit crimes?

like putting everyone that didnt agree with revolution in a dark dungeon never to be seen again? or killing the whole Zar family,women and children included?

To be honest, I don't know much about that. It's not included in the works I've read.

 

[Raziaar]

You're reading it in the wrong context:

"From the point of view of someone who has seen their country invaded and their family blown apart it's possible, of course, for them to construct a moral justification."
He said that during the interview.

Why don't you follow that same point of view? Why don't you like letting a government kill criminals who murder their civilians? I know the whole death penalty thing vs world politics thing doesn't relate on all levels, but it does on some... when I talk to people who think all life is sacred and shouldn't be executed by capital punishment... yet promote and encourage another form of punishment that ends in death.

 

[kirovman]

He did say however: "Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7."

I agree that it's a different order of event from 7/7, but that doesn't make it morally justified.

But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell condemned the comments.

"If Mr Galloway is being accurately reported, he could well be regarded as providing encouragement to someone who might be disposed to carry out a crime of that kind," said Sir Menzies.

"No politician, ever, by act, word, or deed either expressly or by implication, should give any support to the notion that violence might be justified."

I agree very strongly with the highlighted text.

 

[Lemonking]

kirovman,I even doubt he ment what he said,as far as I know he's just an attension whore.

 

[baxter]

"No politician, ever, by act, word, or deed either expressly or by implication, should give any support to the notion that violence might be justified."

It is very rare that I agree with any Liberal democrat, but on this point he is 100% correct.

 

[Mr Stabby]

To be honest, I don't know much about that. It's not included in the works I've read.

So you believe in something you know little about?


The only ideologically sound policy Lenin adopted was war communism, he had to abandon it as it killed the economey, and the peasant were on the verge of starting another civil war, a capitalist system known as the NEP was used to create economic growth and allow the peasants not to starve to death, communism sure was great...

 

[Solaris]

So you believe in something you know little about?


The only ideologically sound policy Lenin adopted was war communism, he had to abandon it as it killed the economey, and the peasant were on the verge of starting another civil war, a capitalist system known as the NEP was used to create economic growth and allow the peasants not to starve to death, communism sure was great...

Let's stay on topic, I'm arguing on two fronts here.

And Kirkov man.

"If Mr Galloway is being accurately reported, he could well be regarded as providing encouragement to someone who might be disposed to carry out a crime of that kind,"

Who's he to talk? His party put up the most pathetic opposition to the war which resulted in the death of 30,000 people, whilst George Galloway was out on the streets protesting along with hundreds of thousands of others.

George Galloway say's killing Tony Blair could be morally justified and the Liberal Democrats let Blair get away with both directly and indirectly killing all thoose civillians in Iraq.

 

[Raziaar]

Oh, so now the liberals are ALSO to blame for the Iraq war?

Riiiight. Make up your damn mind already.

 

[Solaris]

Oh, so now the liberals are ALSO to blame for the Iraq war?

Riiiight. Make up your damn mind already.

Yup, anyone who wasn't actively opposing it is responcable.

 

[Raziaar]

Yup, anyone who wasn't actively opposing it is responcable.

They were actively opposing! What rock have you been under?

 

[Solaris]

They were actively opposing! What rock have you been under?

The Liberal Democrat leader 'Charles kennedy' gave the most pathetic opposition to it.

 

[kirovman]

Charles Kennedy went on at least one anti-war march that went on around the time of the Iraq war, and was widely seen as the unofficial leader of the anti-war movement.

Whatever the case, that doesn't make Menzie's comments any less relevant.

George Galloway's comments have been interpreted by many people as justification for suicide bombings - so obviously, would-be suicide bombers could make the same interpretations. He's handed them the excuse they need on a plate.
If suicide bombers felt that a British politician supports their cause, that makes their cause ever more strong.

And if suicide bombers kill civilians as a result of his comments, that makes him as bad as Blair. Or as negligent as Blair at least.

 

[Solaris]

Charles Kennedy went on at least one anti-war march that went on around the time of the Iraq war, and was widely seen as the unofficial leader of the anti-war movement.

By who? The leading organisation was the stop the war coallition, they led most of the marches ect. Charles kennedy said very little against it.

Whatever the case, that doesn't make Menzie's comments any less relevant.

George Galloway's comments have been interpreted by many people as justification for suicide bombings - so obviously, would-be suicide bombers could make the same interpretations. He's handed them the excuse they need on a plate.

Only if they didn't read what he said.

If suicide bombers felt that a British politician supports their cause, that makes their cause ever more strong.

He Never said he supports them.

And if suicide bombers kill civilians as a result of his comments, that makes him as bad as Blair. Or as negligent as Blair at least.

When he said he wouldn't support it? So if I say Manchester United sucks, and someone blows up manchester united as a result of my comments that makes me responcable?

 

[Kangy]

By who? The leading organisation was the stop the war coallition, they led most of the marches ect. Charles kennedy said very little against it.

Cease your ignorance at once.

 

[baxter]

Solaris,

WTF are you talking about? You should hang your head in shame, Jesus; Razaair,a guy from America knows more about UK politics than you do. For goodness sake please shut up.

The Lib democrats have always opposed the war. Of the three main stream parties they were the only ones who unanimously voted against it. Not one of them approved, not one abstained, they all voted against it.

They have always been an antiwar party and said so without resorting to sensationalism and tacky remarks that Galloway seems to wallow in. This demi god who you seem to think represents true British feeling is an insult.

Jesus,is there anything this guy couldn't say that you wouldn't agree with?

He is wrong, you are wrong, accept it and move on.