Galloway Banned from Canada. Rejoice, Rejoice

[littlebabyjesus]

On balance, I think I preferred Rachamin18 to Zachor. This really is just tiresome, empty ranting. No thought of actually putting together an argument.

 

[Zachor]

Not sure about this, but the STWC/SWP, or members of them, signed up to a statement/communique at the Lebanon 'anti-imperialism' Conference which basically endorsed the 'resistance' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes they certainly did. STWC broke bread with the supporters of the most disgusting atrocities.

If anyone wonders what the West is fighting against its this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5011978/Rageh-Omaar-on-why-the-West-should-fear-the-Taliban-and-al-Qaedas-hold-on-Pakistan.html

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes they certainly did. STWC broke bread with the supporters of the most disgusting atrocities.

If anyone wonders what the West is fighting against its this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-Taliban-and-al-Qaedas-hold-on-Pakistan.html

Thanks for that link. I never knew that.

 

[belboid]

Yes they certainly did. STWC broke bread with the supporters of the most disgusting atrocities.

I don't remember them meeting the Israeli government, or those that dropped white phosphorous on Faluja. The bastards!

 

[Fedayn]

Thanks for that link. I never knew that.

He supported the deliberate targetting of civilian aeras in Gaza with flechette bombs? The murder of old women hy sniper fire? Oh wait, that was your 'oh-so democratic' pals wasn't it?!

 

[ViolentPanda]

On balance, I think I preferred Rachamin18 to Zachor. This really is just tiresome, empty ranting. No thought of actually putting together an argument.

This happens quite often with converts to Judaism. I've seen quite a few "plastic Zionists" in my time, and most of them chunter out Zachor's sort of partisan cant, dismissing actual facts as irrelevant in their quest to prove they're "more Jewish than thou".

As you may be able to discern, I have a deep well of contempt for people who're prepared to prostitute their ideals for any reason.

 

[HackneyE9]

I'm not after any sort of fascist state in the UK not in anyway whatsoever.

However, Galloways pronouncements and his hobnobbing with and record of employment by totalitarian regimes such as Iran and Saddams Iraq and fascistic groupings such as Hamas mean that he is a danger to democracy.

If he was just a joke like many who sadly hold similar views on the Left then the problem wouldn't be so grave but this man is an MP who got into parliament by running a racist campaign againsnt the sitting MP. Galloway despite what his deluded supporters say about him is an egotistical demogogue.

Its not being fascistic to want to preserve democracy and if it means the state and the people going after Galloway then so be it.

Er...you might want to back that up, or withdraw it, considering GG's luck with the laywers.

I remember Oona King claiming, then rapidly withdrawing, an accusation that someone who threw an egg and shouted anti-semitic abuse at her was a GG supporter - but if you have more to say, then let's hear it.

 

[Fedayn]

Yes they certainly did. STWC broke bread with the supporters of the most disgusting atrocities.

A bit like your pals the Israeli government and their trading and arming of apartheid South Africa and thir allies. You are one hypocritical piece of murder justifying shit.

 

[treelover]

it is a very simple matter of principle for any socialist that they support the right of people to resist imperialist invasion

Israel and the IDF have done some obscene things and thankfully are now it seems being found out, but that doesn't mean 'my enemy's friend is my friend', Hamas are fanatics and as for the Taliban. If STWC signed that communique they need to justify it to the wider A/W movement, such as it is.

 

[rich!]

*starts a direct debit to Respect to accompany the one to Hamas*

Post the receipts up here. You might get him to flee too

 

[belboid]

Israel and the IDF have done some obscene things and thankfully are now it seems being found out, but that doesn't mean 'my enemy's friend is my friend', Hamas are fanatics and as for the Taliban. If STWC signed that communique they need to justify it to the wider A/W movement, such as it is.

The statement, as I just said, and as was said at the time, supported the right of people to resist an occupying force. Something which is recognised in international law. If you do not support that right, then you are not really a part of the anti-war movement (well, unless you are a absolute pacifist).

 

[treelover]

So, are you saying you support the right of the Taliban to kill british soldiers?

 

[Zachor]

He supported the deliberate targetting of civilian aeras in Gaza with flechette bombs? The murder of old women hy sniper fire? Oh wait, that was your 'oh-so democratic' pals wasn't it?!

I repeat yet again for the hard of thnking. I supported the attacks on Hamas not the indescrimate killing of civilians. Sadly in a war civilians are inadvertantly hit or in the case of Gaza deliberately put in harms way by Hamas.

 

[Fedayn]

So, are you saying you support the right of the Taliban to kill british soldiers?

Do you support the right of British soldiers to occupy and kill Afghans? Did you support the right of Cubans to resist the Bay of Pigs invasion? The right of the Vietnamese to resist the French and US occupation/invasion? The right of the East Timorese to resist Indosian murder and occupation?

Defending the right to militarily resist an invasion does not = defence of religious fundamentalists, it's a bit more complex than your simple black and white view.

 

[Zachor]

Er...you might want to back that up, or withdraw it, considering GG's luck with the laywers.

I remember Oona King claiming, then rapidly withdrawing, an accusation that someone who threw an egg and shouted anti-semitic abuse at her was a GG supporter - but if you have more to say, then let's hear it.

No I've heard this again regarding the King case. Will try to look for references.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, are you saying you support the right of the Taliban to kill british soldiers?

Not sure it is a question of rights. Do you support the 'right' of British soldiers to kill Afghanis?

 

[Fedayn]

I repeat yet again for the hard of thnking. I supported the attacks on Hamas not the indescrimate killing of civilians. Sadly in a war civilians are inadvertantly hit or in the case of Gaza deliberately put in harms way by Hamas.

Regev made it clear that the targetting of the civilian areas was a legitimate part of that 'war' on Hamas.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No I've heard this again regarding the King case. Will try to look for references.

Oona King voted for the war in Iraq.

Fuck her.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So, are you saying you support the right of the Taliban to kill british soldiers?

What a cunt's interpretation to put on what belboid said!
He didn't mention specific military or paramilitary forces, he mentioned people.

Of course, if you actually knew anything about the situation in Afghanistan, you'd know that "taliban" is a convenient label placed on any forces (regardless of whether their resistance is based on religion) that resist the puppet government.

 

[belboid]

So, are you saying you support the right of the Taliban to kill british soldiers?

Are you saying that Afghans can ask USUK troops politely to go home, buit nothing else? Even when they're being shot at?

 

[tarannau]

Sadly in a war civilians are inadvertantly hit or in the case of Gaza deliberately put in harms way by Hamas.

Inadvertantly hit with that most discerning of weapons, white phosphorous? Or Palestinians shot 'accidently' by Israeli snipers who've admitted to little remorse becuase their lives are worth 'much less' than Israeli one.

There's being unbalanced and simplisitic. But you're tipping over into the deliberately and unpleasantly myopic Zachor. Those attacks were massively indiscriminate compared to the risk those rockets actually posed.

 

[belboid]

No I've heard this again regarding the King case. Will try to look for references.

'I've heard this again' What utter drivel.

Will Zachor post up an apology for his heinous (and indeed libellous) insult of GG, or will he just skulk away and sday nothing? I wonder...

 

[ViolentPanda]

I repeat yet again for the hard of thnking. I supported the attacks on Hamas not the indescrimate killing of civilians. Sadly in a war civilians are inadvertantly hit or in the case of Gaza deliberately put in harms way by Hamas.

Who decides whether someone is or isn't a member or supporter of HAMAS?
You see, with a little spin, the IDF press office was able to spin the killing of civvies as the termination of HAMAS members.

As for your "sadly" point, you don't really give a fuck, and most of us know it. If you did care, you'd be able to bring yourself to actually assess the Gaza situation from a less partisan perspective.

 

[belboid]

Who decides whether someone is or isn't a member or supporter of HAMAS?

EVERYONE in gaza is a member or supporter of Hamas. They voted for them, therefore they all deserve to die.

 

[DotCommunist]

How do you 'accidentally' target a UN School with white phos fired from the most sophisticate fighter jets available to modern warfare?

They done a fallujah on gaza city.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Regev made it clear that the targetting of the civilian areas was a legitimate part of that 'war' on Hamas.

The "legitimacy" mainly lying in the fact of convenience (i.e. "collateral damage only means dead Pals, so...") and the hope by some in the IDF that such indiscriminate mayhem would scare more Pals out of the Occupied Territories.

 

[ViolentPanda]

EVERYONE in gaza is a member or supporter of Hamas. They voted for them, therefore they all deserve to die.

In Zachor-land, anyway.
Buying into the kind of rhetoric that allows the kind of slaughter that went on in Gaza to happen in the first place is a cunt's trick. To hang on to those arguments in the face of what amounts to masses of proof otherwise displays either psychosis or prejudice on a massive scale.

 

[belboid]

well, quite.

Actually, it's almost funny how Zachors argument is the same as the fundamentalist loons he claims to oppose.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How do you 'accidentally' target a UN School with white phos fired from the most sophisticate fighter jets available to modern warfare?

Well, the (rather poor if you talk to any ordnance or artillery specialist) argument is that WP shells and bombs are air-burst munitions, and that minute mis-calculations in trajectory can cause large errors in deployment. However, given that both pilots and artillery are trained to allow for local conditions (wind-speed, humidity etc) that can cause these minute mis-calculations, it's a specious argument IMHO. The IDF used WP munitions as terror weapons, pure and simple.

 

[ViolentPanda]

well, quite.

Actually, it's almost funny how Zachors argument is the same as the fundamentalist loons he claims to oppose.

I wonder why that is?