Galloway says killing of Blair "justified"

[Kaka Tim]

And whilst Blairs assassination could very well reuslt in a wave of reactionary authoritarianism (would we notice the difference?) it does, at least, put subsequnet leaders on notice that, if they fuck the people over, they may one day have to pay their dues ...


ask Nicolae Ceauşescu

 

[Fullyplumped]

There are many many politicians both now and in the past who it would be completely legitimate to kill. And as you can only reply through insults I take it that means you can't argue back.

..politicians should face the death penalty and potential assasination.

Well I was just admiring the grandeur and majesty of your all encompassing vision. Everyone who disagrees with you is moronic. Probably most people who agree with you are moronic too. So I'm disappointed to see a bit of backtracking from you - when you say "there are many many politicians both now and in the past who it would be completely legitimate to kill", should we take it that there are or were some whom it would be only incompletely legitimate to kill? And what about us morons?

Serious question.

 

[Lock&Light]

What do you think ought to be done in an imaginary situation where there's a criminal leader, who has a bunch of henchmen who with superior weaponry, bully everyone else into carrying out his criminal actions?

I think such a person should be removed from power and put on trial, and that's exactly what Blair helped to bring about.

 

[Lock&Light]

Again - how is someone assassinating Blair any worse than the USuk asassination attempts on Saddam, or Gaddaffi or sundry taliban and Al Q types?

Why do ask me that? I've never suggested that assassinating Blair is any worse than assassinating anyone. I disapprove of all assassinations.

 

[ZWord]

"I think such a person should be removed from power and put on trial, and that's exactly what Blair helped to bring about."

Well good for him. Isn't it great to have such a fine upstanding christian leader in charge of us?

What if your suggestion is impossible? as of course it was in Iraq until we stepped in, and as of course it is in America and England, despite george bush's proved election fraud in the year 2000.

 

[Lock&Light]

Well good for him. Isn't it great to have such a fine upstanding christian leader in charge of us?

What the hell has christianity to do with any of this. Anti-Islamist as I am, I'm even more anti-Christianist. That'll have to do with the fact that I was brought up as the son of a Presbyterian minister.

 

[ZWord]

What the hell has christianity to do with any of this. ? .

That's what I always say, as well, - particularly with regard to Bush.
What the hell has christianity to do with any of this.?
Good question.

I'm even more anti-Christianist..

That'll be why you like TB so much then,.

So, anyway, you disapprove of all assassinations. But are all assassinations equally bad, or are some better than others?

mayber you'd favour us with a badness estimate, how bad do you think the assassination of each of the following leaders was or would have been?

Gandhi, Kennedy, Bush, Hitler.

You can even add some if you find it an interesting game. But maybe you won't, if you seriously think all political assassinations are equally bad.

 

[Lock&Light]

That'll be why you like TB so much then,.

I have never liked Tony Blair very much. Expressing my support for some of his political actions in no way suggests a personal affinity for the man.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Why do ask me that? I've never suggested that assassinating Blair is any worse than assassinating anyone. I disapprove of all assassinations.

Just executions then?

 

[Lock&Light]

Just executions then?

Executions are seldom just.

 

[JoePolitix]

Er, right cos he's all heart our Tony.

It's not a question of him being "all heart". Human beings have a capacity for guilt and Blair's not a socio-path - just your bog standard bourgeois leader.

My estimation is that he is wracked with guilt. Not good enough of course which is why he should be tried in an international criminal court along with Dubya.

 

[Groucho]

My estimation is that he is wracked with guilt.

What do you base that estimation on exactly?

Has he expressed a single word of regret? No. Has he bothered to meet the relatives of dead soldiers? No. Has he visited the injured in hospital? No. Has he expressed regret for the killing of civilians in Iraq? No. Has he ruled out bombing Iran? No. Has he sacked Jack Straw after he said that bombing Iran would be unthinkable and replaced him with a Minister who says she couldn't rule out an attack on Iran? Yes.

He's hardly 'wracked with guilt' is he? He couldn't give a shit about the deaths he's caused.

 

[X-77]

My estimation is that he is wracked with guilt.

really? My god you have a high opinion of the man. My estimation is that he doesn't give a flying fuck about any of the deaths, full stop.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Executions are seldom just.

Right - so your not into asassinnation (although I dont recall you bineg too bothered about the USuks various attempts to off Saddam) and you dont seem to support executions (although again you seemed to be quite hot on the idea for Saddam) so its only the invasion and destruction of dirt poor countries full of oil that you approve of?

fair enough - cos thats clearly morally justifiable and righteous in a way that assassinating mass murdering war criminals is not.

glad I ve got that one cleared up.

 

[Lock&Light]

Right - so your not into asassinnation (although I dont recall you bineg too bothered about the USuks various attempts to off Saddam") and you dont seem to support executions (although again you seemed to be quite hot on the idea for Saddam) so its only the invasion and destruction of dirt poor countries full of oil that you approve of?

If you were as capable of reading as you are of posting you would know that none of those assertions (i.e. The two in brackets and the one you end with) fit anything that I have ever said.

Otherwise you would have to be a shit-stirrer.