« The results are in.. | Main | I love the smell of literature in the morning »

Gorgeous George at it again

Telegraph | News | Galloway pours petrol on the flames

In his most inflammatory outburst yet on the invasion of Iraq, George Galloway has sought to justify lethal attacks on British troops on the grounds that the rebels "are defending all the people of the world from American hegemony". Put down anything breakable before you read the rest.

George became a superhero to the Media because he is seen as a lovable old rogue, bit of a rebel, bit like lovely Ken, gave Tony a bit of a lesson with out being a Tory and gave those dull old American politicians what-for on television. So this will be just tutted at the way you tut a naughty nephew who breaks a vase. It's just George, isn't it? Only old fuddy-duddies will take offence - won't they?

Comments

the man is

1) inciting murder
2) inciting racial hatred
3) traitor

When a conservative government is returned, he shall be arrested. The death penalty shall be reintroduced for treason. Lord HawHaw Galloway shall be heading the gallows way

The headlline I'd like to see is:

"Pours petrol on Galloway, the flames..."

This odious man would do well to remember that the kind of people he keeps company with are fickle at best.

Put a foot wrong with them & he could wind up starring in the next Jihadi straight-to-video extravagaza - I hope!

Yes, wonder if GG is a bit worried about the fact they are considering treason charges for those who incite racial hatred I am guessing he will stay in Syria now.

From my perspective George Galloway is the only patriot in the House of Commons. All the rest are either in denial or traitors in varying degrees, from Tony Blair down. Taking your country to war on lies and deception: That’s treachery in my book. Where did you say those weapons of mass destruction were again? There is increasing evidence that the Blair and Bush knew Saddam had no WMD’s before the invasion. Saddam was a monster, no question, but it's doubtful if Congress and Parliament would have voted for war if they had been in possession of the facts. And Bush and the American military talking of prosecuting the war for at least the next decade is so unrealistic. US troops will stay in Iraq while George Bush is president and that may not be for much longer. Then they will be withdrawn putting the best possible face on a humiliating defeat. If really desperate, the Bush administration may widen the conflict to Iran and Syria.

As I recall George Galloway essentially said, “It was Britain's foreign policy with respect to Iraq that made the 7 July London bombing more likely"; hard to disagree with that. Surely you don’t buy that George Bush’s lame logic “They hate our freedom”? If that were true, wouldn’t cities like Stockholm be on red alert.
London was attacked because Britain was America’s accomplice in the Iraq invasion and occupation. Innocent Londoners paid the price for Blair’s political folly. The US has committed horrendous atrocities and war crimes in Iraq: Use of Napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions for starters. Then there's routine use of torture against civilians; men, women and children. Typical US “shoot first and ask questions afterwards”, has resulted in massive deaths, injuries and infrastructure damage. Brutal, licentious soldiery. And although British soldiers are infinitely better trained and disciplined, as the US’s junior partner Britain is equally culpable. If Iraqi insurgents had F-16's and Cruise missiles with which to retaliate, rather than suicide bombers, I'm sure they'd prefer to use them. Clearly they don't have sophisticated weaponry, so they strike back at their enemies with whatever they have. Face it, by joining the US on the Iraq misadventure, Britain became one of the bad guys. Anybody left with a conscience?

As to, “Tony Blair has more blood on his hands than the July bombers”. Here we get into morality. Who carries the greater guilt; the one that gives the order of the one that carries out the deed? For my money it's the one that gives the order, but assuming guilt is equal, then in terms of numbers, Tony Blair has far more blood on his hands. Whether you believe the 30,000 of the 100,000 figure for Iraqi deaths since GWB declared “mission accomplished”, the collateral damage in London was a drop in the bucket compared with what Iraq has suffered. Fifty-two dead; that’s an average day in Iraq.
Then there’s Blair’s proposed anti-terror legislation, so ill conceived. Under this, academics could be charged with treason or “justifying terrorism”. Political science and law professors would be subject to arrest. The free speech implications are huge. Criticising Tony Blair’s foreign policy risks jail time. That really would mark the start of Police State UK. No wonder Cherie’s criticising Tony in public. She’s a real lawyer. Her husband is a lawyer that has never practised and had to re-take his bar exam. A failure that went into politics. And what about that nebulous crime of withholding information? Didn’t that used to called obstruction? “Tell us what you know or you’ll be arrested.” This means anyone could be arrested at anytime. As suppose you really don’t know what the police are asking you? This is witch trial justice where you have to “prove your innocence”.
However, there is one aspect of the 7 July bombing I find confusing: If it was the work of British-based Muslims they surely lacked the expertise to carry out an operation like this unaided. To believe the “Leeds patsy” version implies it was rogue cell acting independently. The logic, “Kill enough soldiers, public opinion forces troop withdrawal; kill civilians, government sends more troops” is inescapable. So either this was the intention or whoever carried out the London bombings wasn’t too politically savvy. And the one thing al-Qaeda has going for it is political sophistication.

Post a comment