George Galloway

Post Reply
User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Pappa » Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:45 pm

sandinista wrote:Is my sarcasm meter going off?
I hope so. :biggrin:
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

Lozzer
First Only Gay
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:37 pm
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Lozzer » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:39 pm

sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeee

User avatar
Eriku
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:19 am
About me: Mostly harmless...
Location: Ørsta, Norway
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Eriku » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:41 pm

Lozzer wrote:
sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.
*cough splutter*

I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by sandinista » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:45 pm

Eriku wrote:
Lozzer wrote:
sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.
*cough splutter*

I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.
"cough splutter" to put it mildly. By that logic the US should have been invaded numerous times and it's leaders disposed of.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Beatsong
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Beatsong » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:56 am

The Mad Hatter wrote:So you oppose the removal of a maniacal, homocidal tyrant on what grounds?
Keep indulging the adjectives.

It's not a question of my grounds for opposing it. International law says that countries don't have the right to unilaterally invade other countries when those other countries have not attacked them. If you want to introduce an exception to that in the form of invasion justified by how much we dislike a particular leader's domestic policies, then it's up to you to explain why you're selectively applying that principle to Saddam only, instead of to ALL the tyrants in the world who have committed human rights abuses - ie most of the middle east and Africa, and a good deal else besides. Starting maybe with Saudi Arabia, the Americans' oil buddies.

Besides which, the opinion that Saddam was a "maniacal, homocidal tyrant" was never put forward as sufficient reason for invading Iraq in the first place. That reason was the magic WMDs - remember those? :lol: And there's a good reason for having to invent such a fiction - the fact that there is simply no precedent in international law or diplomacy for taking over other countries because "we don't like the people currently running them", and everyone knows full well that if we were to apply such a precedent with any honesty or consistency, we would need to take over half the world.

If you look at the Galloway-Hitchens debate, Galloway is actually pretty straight on this. He DOESN'T actually laud Saddam and say what a great guy he was, he describes him as a "tin pot dictator". But he asks which is the lesser evil - the existence of such a tin pot dictator within one contained country (in a region where, let's face it, practically everywhere is run by tin pot dictators too); or the violation of the most basic principle of international sovereignty via a country unilaterally annexing another, massacring thousands of that country's military and plenty of civilians in the process, bringing the country to the absolute nadir of violent civil chaos, massively increasing resentment and the drive towards radicalisation throughout the muslim world, giving every muslim with a grievance and his dog reason to go to Iraq and fight them, and then not even being able to control the forces they've unleashed and reconstruct any kind of peaceful, stable society anyway.

User avatar
Toontown
Posts: 422
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:26 am
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Toontown » Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:10 am

To Saddam:

Your Excellency, Mr President: I greet you, in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means, which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq.
Just as your buddy Saddam aimed to strangle the life out of Iranians and Kurds with his chemical mixtures.

And we won't mention the rape of Kuwait, of course. That would be uncouth.
I greet you, too, in the name of the Palestinian people, amongst whom 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.
Yes, Their dear brother Saddam, killer of 2 million Muslims. And a few dozen infidels.

These Muslims are sooo laudable for their unquestioning loyalty to one another. Except when a couple million of them need to be killed, of course. Just business, you know. Nothing personal.
And this was true, especially at the base in the refugee camps of Jabaliyah and Beach Camp in Gaza, in the Balatah refugee camp in Nablus and on the streets of the towns and villages in the occupied lands.
Which pretty much explains why they are refugee camps and occupied lands.
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;
Sons who will have to change their names after the historians finally get around to sifting through the huge piles of anti-American propaganda, and determine that Saddam was, in fact, the brutish seizer of Iraqi sovereignty and killer of 2 million Muslims, and nothing more. While the infidel Coalition Of The Willing returned Iraqi sovereignty, and Bush and Cheney did not make off with the Iraqis' oil, as the lying liars of the loon left insisted they would.

It will be a real bitch to be a Saddam-boy if the truth ever gets out.
and that two weeks ago, when I was trapped inside the Orient House, which is the Palestinian headquarters in al-Quds [Jerusalem]....
Trapped? Like a rat? Poor Saddam would later learn the true meaning of that. Too bad you escaped, you pig.
with 5,000 armed mustwatinin [settlers] outside demonstrating, pledging to tear down the Palestinian flag from the flagpole, the hundreds of shabab [youths] inside the compound were chanting that they wish to be with a DSh K [machine gun] in Baghdad to avenge the eyes of Abu Jihad.
Yes, they want to die for you, Saddam. Because those 2 million Muslim scalps on your belt are so impressive.

Nevermind the paltry number of infidel scalps. Real, deserving heros are hard to find in the Muslimhood. And that's the only reason you have a shot at being one, Galloway.
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 honourary member of their club and to present him with this flag from holy Jerusalem.
Yes, because the killer of 2 million Muslims deserves to be a member of the suicide bomber recruiters club.
I wish to say, sir, that I believe that we are turning the tide in Europe, that the scale of the humanitarian disaster which has been imposed upon the Iraqi people is now becoming more and more widely known and accepted.
Hardly a difficult task to turn the Eurotrash. Nothing to brag about. But when you're desperate for propaganda, you're desperate for propaganda.
Fifty-five British members of parliament opposed the war, but 125 are demanding the lifting of the embargo; and this does not include the invisible section of the Conservative Party who must also be moving in that direction, and Sir Edward Heath is being a very persuasive advocate inside the Conservative Party.
Right, Galloway, because Saddam was paying you to work to get the embargo lifted. Of course you would want to show progress, however meager. But of course you don't want to get the embargo lifted too soon. Too many criminalistic turds making too much blood money off it. You included.
It is my belief that we must convey the very clear picture that 1994 has to be the year of the ending of the embargo against Iraq. Otherwise, famine and all the awful consequences, including acts of despair by Iraqis, will be the result; and this is the message we must convey to civilized opinion in Europe.
Translation: "If the embargo is not lifted, you will siphon off all the oil-for-food relief to the Iraqis, sell it, spend it on palaces, and cause a famine. Then I and my cohorts will screech that the sanctions caused the famine. We will teach them the true meaning of "propaganda.""
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].
Eh. Too bad you weren't with him to the end, when he dropped through the trap door. But I know your wisened little heart was there with him.
To a lovely Islamic crowd:
So I say to you, citizens of the last Arab country, this is a time for courage, for unity, for wisdom, for determination, to face these enemies with the dignity your president has shown, and I believe, God willing, we will prevail and triumph, wa-salam aleikum.
And, once again, Galloway believed correctly. Sort of. Eventually, the Iraqis did prevail - against Saddam, his murderous lackeys, and his false prophet, Galloway.

Galloway just better hope he's dead before the historians get this gargantuan pile of anti-American propagandistic garbage sorted out. The pig turned traitor, plain and simple.

He was Saddam's private dancer, a dancer for money
He did what Saddam told him to do
His private dancer, a dancer for money
And never said anything true...

Lozzer
First Only Gay
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:37 pm
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Lozzer » Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:52 pm

sandinista wrote:
Eriku wrote:
Lozzer wrote:
sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.
*cough splutter*

I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.
"cough splutter" to put it mildly. By that logic the US should have been invaded numerous times and it's leaders disposed of.
You're a bright one, aren't you? The United States is required by the bill to be a promoter, not an instigator of Human Rights violations. Through a system of democracy, the country is able to uphold that. And being a democracy, it's able to hold violators to account. Is this the same with Iraq? LOL NO.
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeee

User avatar
RuleBritannia
Cupid is a cunt!
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:55 pm
About me: About you
Location: The Machine
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by RuleBritannia » Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:37 pm

Lozzer wrote:
sandinista wrote:
Eriku wrote:
Lozzer wrote:
sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.
*cough splutter*

I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.
"cough splutter" to put it mildly. By that logic the US should have been invaded numerous times and it's leaders disposed of.
You're a bright one, aren't you? The United States is required by the bill to be a promoter, not an instigator of Human Rights violations. Through a system of democracy, the country is able to uphold that. And being a democracy, it's able to hold violators to account. Is this the same with Iraq? LOL NO.
:this: Unlike Iraq the United States government never violates human rights, but if they do (which is extremely rare) all those responsible are brought to justice.













Image
RuleBritannia © MMXI

Lozzer
First Only Gay
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:37 pm
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Lozzer » Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:48 pm

The typical violators in the US are often transnational organisations or companies. NGOs are responsible for bringing their offenses to attention, prosecution and justice. They do a damnable fine job Charlie boy, though it could be better. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe as it is in the case of Tony Blair in the UK, I've entirely imagined the current Iraq inquiry which could result in incarceration for violators :fp:
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeee

User avatar
RuleBritannia
Cupid is a cunt!
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:55 pm
About me: About you
Location: The Machine
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by RuleBritannia » Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:01 pm

Yeah it's all those transnational companies torturing people and imprisoning them without trial, phone tapping citizens and bombing Pakistani tribal areas.
RuleBritannia © MMXI

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by sandinista » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:13 pm

Lozzer wrote:
sandinista wrote:
Eriku wrote:
Lozzer wrote:
sandinista wrote:and what gives the US the right to decide who stays or doesn't stay in power?
The motherfuckin' declaration of Human rights. Governments lose legitimate claim to power when they violate the international bill of Human rights. Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. Rights exist to protect the citizen from the state, and when the state become a major transgressor it opens itself to revolution, reform or thorough removal. Saddam's regime was a monstrosity which had elected itself through its own actions to be a subject of international concern. The US acted on the egalitarian principles it was founded upon, and swiftly deposed a tyrant which had held dominion for too long on the people of Iraq.
*cough splutter*

I think you'll find that the US administrations routinely steps on people's/nation's rights.
"cough splutter" to put it mildly. By that logic the US should have been invaded numerous times and it's leaders disposed of.
You're a bright one, aren't you? The United States is required by the bill to be a promoter, not an instigator of Human Rights violations. Through a system of democracy, the country is able to uphold that. And being a democracy, it's able to hold violators to account. Is this the same with Iraq? LOL NO.
I think my sarcasm meter is going off again...has to be...that has to be one of the most nonsense posts I've ever read. Required by a "bill" to promote human rights NOT violate them? WHAAAA???!!! System of democracy???!! WWWHHHAAA? Holy shit mang. The US has historically been one of the worst human rights violators on the planet :blond:
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Lozzer
First Only Gay
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:37 pm
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Lozzer » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:38 pm

♥ your appeal to facetiousness and sardonic humor. You could address my argument, but that would mean thinking, wouldn't it? :funny:
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeee

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by sandinista » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:51 pm

I did address your "argument" if that's what you want to call it.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Lozzer
First Only Gay
Posts: 6536
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:37 pm
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by Lozzer » Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:00 pm

sandinista wrote:I did address your "argument" if that's what you want to call it.
And failed, miserably ;)
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeee

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: George Galloway

Post by sandinista » Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:02 pm

actually no, it was a roaring success. :td:
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests