Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Galloway says killing of Blair "justified"

Fisher_Gate said:
So Galloway is attacked for saying that someone might claim it was justified to assassinate Blair because of his actions in Iraq, while pointing out that personally he would be opposed to such an assassination?

Meanwhile Galloway is visiting Castro

... a head of state who has actually been the target of a range of assassination attempts by the Government of USA according to definitive official documents:



... while Blair visits his partner in crime, George W Bush ... head of the state responsible for that attempt to assassinate another head of state:



But Ming Campbell condemns Galloway, not Blair ...



It's a funny old world ...



Post of the week without a doubt! Excellent thinking sir!;)
 
What a stupid statement to make. :mad:

Meanwhile Galloway is visiting Castro

... a head of state who has actually been the target of a range of assassination attempts by the Government of USA according to definitive official documents:

And Castro is innocent of using violence towards people I assume?
 
X-77 said:
it's racism, pure and simple. Iraqi lives mean fuck all to some cretins on this site.


Crikey....Talk about bullshit.. You cry your crocodile tears but just try and remember more people die of starvation and hunger related illnesses every day than have died in the media frenzy war in Iraq.
Now thats what i call RACISM.
 
I am going to keep this short and to the point because it's all been said before by far more eloquent people than me.

But our words have no impact upon you therefore I'm going to talk to you in a language that you understand. Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood.

I'm sure by now the media has painted a suitable picture of me, this predictable propaganda machine will naturally try to put a spin on it to suit the Government and to scare the masses into conforming to their power and wealth obsessed agendas.

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our driving motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God, Allah and follow in the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Mohammed...

This is how our ethical stances are dictated. Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people and your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.

Until we feel security, you will be our target. Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight.

We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.


And that is how suicide bombing is '''justified''. I don't care whether it is democratically elected leaders or voters who may or not have voted for them being suicide bombed, here or in Iraq.

There is no justification for advocating suicide bombing, of Blair or anybody else. Whatever you think their crimes are.

FFS.
 
articul8 said:
Actually Galloway's interview does raise some useful criticism of suicide bombing as a tactic (and in saying he would shop such an individual to the authorities he has gone much further than his friends in the SWP who refuse to 'condemn' individual acts of terror).

I alway's thought the SWP followed Trotsky's thinking on 'individual terror'?

In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the 'propaganda of the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise.

There is no need to belabour the point that Social Democracy has nothing in common with those bought-and-paid-for moralists who, in response to any terrorist act, make solemn declarations about the 'absolute value' of human life. These are the same people who, on other occasions, in the name of other absolute values - for example, the nation's honour or the monarch's prestige - are ready to shove millions of people into the hell of war. Today their national hero is the minister who gives the sacred right of private property; and tomorrow, when the desperate hand of the unemployed workers is clenched into a fist or picks upon a weapon, they will start in with all sorts of nonsense about the inadmissibility of violence in any form.

The outbreaks of anarchist assassination in Western Europe and North America always come after some atrocity committed by the government - the shooting of strikers or executions of political opponents. The most important psychological source of terrorism is always the feeling of revenge in search of an outlet.

Sorry to quote at length, but in this context necessary.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1909/tia09.htm
 
Fair play to him. We should have a national referendum on whether Galloway should be imprisoned or Blair executed :cool:
 
Kid_Eternity said:
Well given that you and Ming have alot in common it's an easy mistake to make...

You know little of Ming and nothing of me, so it's obvious you're just shit-stirring as has always been your wont.
 
articul8 said:
But far from 'making the point' about Blair's actions, talk of his assasination being 'morally justified' - whilst it might delight the rrrrr-revolutionary ultra left - would only push the majority of people into supporting their 'own' side.

Would it?

You got any evidnece of that?

of course the media are going to go ape, as are all the establishment politicions, they'll try to stifle any debate about the reality of the situation (essentially that Blair is a war criminal), but lots of ordinary people, without any political affiliation will say 'hes got a point'.

People seem to be saying that they essentially agree with Galloways point bu that he shouldn't have said it - what sort of self-censourous bollocks is that? Police state? Your doing the job for them.
 
^^^^ :D

What I find amusing is that Bush looks at Blair with adoration but calls John Howard bald and ugly (not the exact words but he may as well have used them).

party-smiley-018.gif
 
i think its good that there is a politician who speaks his mind. Most leading politicains are spineless thinking that if they admit to failure or say something that they 'shouldnt' people will think less of them. Im sorry but the majority of people think even less of them for not doing so. Even though i dont condown violence, he's just saying it like it is and all the better for it imho.


edited to add.... at least his radio show might be worth a listen. sure he'll talk about it.
 
Hocus Eye. said:
Galloway needs to get himself some training in dealing with the media.
Not a bit of it, he's as shrewd an operator as you'll find. He's milking this hardnosed reble image for all it's worth, and it's made him basically untouchable. He doesn't *care* if the Scum et al throw muck at him, it just validates everything he says about them, and his eagerness at the libel game ensures nothing really damaging sticks.

The Scum are basically powerless. He survives everything they throw, and the longer he does, the more pathetic they look. I can't stand the man, but he's a clever fucker alright.
 
tbaldwin said:
Crikey....Talk about bullshit.. You cry your crocodile tears but just try and remember more people die of starvation and hunger related illnesses every day than have died in the media frenzy war in Iraq.
Now thats what i call RACISM.
it is possible to think that bombing the shit out of people and world poverty are both criminal you know - except you refuse to see anything wrong with what this govt has done in Iraq. You are a fucking disgusting apologist for mass murder. Iraqis are subhuman in your eyes and don't even try to deny it.
 
MC5 said:
I alway's thought the SWP followed Trotsky's thinking on 'individual terror'?

well yes and no - They don't agree with the methods of individual terror. But they don't believe that it is right to use the language of condemnation either.

Which left them in the ridiculous position of objecting to the condemnation of 9/11.
 
Badger Kitten said:
I don't care whether it is democratically elected leaders or voters who may or not have voted for them being suicide bombed, here or in Iraq.

There is no justification for advocating suicide bombing, of Blair or anybody else. Whatever you think their crimes are.

FFS.
yeah, I actually don't agree that someone else should die in the process of killing Blair...but that's the only thing wrong with the scenario.
 
Lock&Light said:
I agree totally with Ming Campbell:

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."


..the premisis sits on him being " accurately reported" in the first instance. As for the final part of Mings comments...perhaps he should address thos ewords to the Prime Minister.....that would be more apt.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Would it?

You got any evidnece of that?

Do you honestly think a national opinion poll would give more than a tiny fraction of people thinking Blair's assasination would be "morally justified"?

Even much of the anti-war movement would object. Its not a question of defending Blair - who has been complicit in murder on a vast scale. Its just that isolated acts of individual terror are both futile and counterproductive and therefore never justified.
 
articul8 said:
Do you honestly think a national opinion poll would give more than a tiny fraction of people thinking Blair's assasination would be "morally justified"?

Even much of the anti-war movement would object. Its not a question of defending Blair - who has been complicit in murder on a vast scale. Its just that isolated acts of individual terror are both futile and counterproductive and therefore never justified.
again, what's your evidence? I personally think that most people would think it justified. People would have a field day if Blair was murdered.
 
To be fair, if we did have a poll over who should be shot - then there can only be one outcome. I doubt the majority of the 'voting public' know who Blair is, but it's too late for poor old George :D
 
If Blair got killed there would be the biggest reactionary backlash imaginable. His image would go from a lame duck leader of a disastrous war, into a martyr for freedom and democracy. :(

You lot are in fantasy land if you think the majority of Brits support Blair's execution by extreme right-wing Islamists.
 
X-77 said:
I personally think that most people would think it justified. People would have a field day if Blair was murdered.

I'm very glad that I don't have to depend on your sense of political judgement.
 
I dislike the publicity-addicted Islamophile and dictator-worshipper, but I think his latest comments are being a bit overplayed.

He has not called for Blair to be assassinated. "I am not calling for it," he said. He has also said he thinks it would be counter-productive and that if he knew of any plot to assassinate Blair he would alert the authorities.

He was just expressing his view of Blair (which we knew already) and sucking up to militant Mozzies by making clear that, like them, he sympathises with jihadi suicide bombers. Is it really a surprise to anyone where his sympathies lie?
 
I said in another unrelated thread pretty much the same thing.

Fortunately I am not a political leader so no one cares what I say, and it doesn't make the news.

We have not done nearly enough in this country to counter what Blair has done, in fact, we re-elected him, and by we, I mean this country as a whole, you either voted for him, didn't bother to vote, or enough of us didn't vote against him, we are all responsible for his crimes to some degree.

As I said before, someone brought the terror we have wrought on Iraq home to us, and we label them evil, cause it suits our needs, it makes it easier for us to deal with. Much harder to realise that this is what we have done to the Iraqis, to empathise with the terror and pain and suffering they have gone through because of our government, far easier to just label these people evil and move on with our lives continuing to ignore what our government has done.

We are a bunch of hypocritical twats who don't seem to understand the consequences of the actions of our government. We aren't marching on Downing Street or on Parliment daily demanding the withdrawl of all of our troops from Iraq because we have learnt the of the terror and pain our troops are inflicting, using the money that we pay in tax to do it.

No, its just evil people doing evil things.

Do I wish a suicide bomber on Tony Blair?

Absolutely.

Rather him then more people who don't have power and don't have the ability to stop this war.
 
Back
Top Bottom