Opinion of George Galloway

[© Tweed the Younger]

suit yourself, but your perception here, if you are applying it to me (which is always unclear due to the way you write), is incorrect.  I would be perfectly glad to discuss with and learn from you on this topic.  I of course have a very limited knowledge of the various factors at play here and concede that, and thus only have my 'go-to' sources of interpretation which have helped me before.  to strike up discussion I offer that up and take the risk.  you seem to prefer to say to your interlocutors, "you're wrong, I have the knowledge to prove it, and will not offer it, because you are so wrong to be beyond any rehabilitation, and moreover, you're a class enemy of the people your purport to care about and represent".  which is a sh**tty way to act, and I feel a pang of sorrow for you if that is the way you 'actually are', as you claim.

[Redalgo]

Neutral? The guy is an open anti-semite who supports slaughtering innocent people as long as it's done as a stand against liberal democracy. I don't see how his views on the environment matters at all in that context. He is one of few Western politicians who openly supports anti-semitic conspiracy theories, military dictatorship and murder of political opponents.

It is not as though I approve of such conduct, if it is true. I am merely responding based on the very limited supply of information I possess. Please bear in mind that I had never even heard of this guy until the thread started, still know little about him, and waded into the thread with less than ten minutes' worth of hasty review of basic summations of his political positions and career - at no point during which I came across sentiments similar to those you are posting. The point of switching to a neutral position was to see what folks had to say about him - not to claim in any authoritative tone that the good and bad are roughly even with him.

If I were only to post in threads discussing subjects I am intimately familiar with I'd have very little to do on this forum. From time to time I am liable to make missteps, be wrong, or get confused.

[Gustaf]

Neutral? The guy is an open anti-semite who supports slaughtering innocent people as long as it's done as a stand against liberal democracy. I don't see how his views on the environment matters at all in that context. He is one of few Western politicians who openly supports anti-semitic conspiracy theories, military dictatorship and murder of political opponents.

It is not as though I approve of such conduct, if it is true. I am merely responding based on the very limited supply of information I possess. Please bear in mind that I had never even heard of this guy until the thread started, still know little about him, and waded into the thread with less than ten minutes' worth of hasty review of basic summations of his political positions and career - at no point during which I came across sentiments similar to those you are posting. The point of switching to a neutral position was to see what folks had to say about him - not to claim in any authoritative tone that the good and bad are roughly even with him.

If I were only to post in threads discussing subjects I am intimately familiar with I'd have very little to do on this forum. From time to time I am liable to make missteps, be wrong, or get confused.

I'm no expert on Galloway, but this is very well-known. His political career in modern times basically consists of hating Jews so as to get the Muslim vote.

"In an interview with the American radio host Alex Jones, Galloway blamed Israel for creating "conditions in the Arab countries and in some European countries to stampede Jewish people ... into the Zionist state". Jones then alleged that the "Zionists" funded Hitler, to which Galloway replied that Zionists used the Jewish people "to create this little settler state on the Mediterranean," whose purpose was "to act as an advance guard for their own interests in the Arab world...""

“I am still a member of parliament and was re-elected five times. On the last occasion I was re-elected despite all the efforts made by the British government, the Zionist movement and the newspapers and news media which are controlled by Zionism.”

"Scott Long, writing in The Guardian, criticised Galloway's claim that "homosexuals aren't executed in Iran, just rapists", pointing out that current law in the country stipulates that "Penetrative sex acts between men can bring death on the first conviction""

"Galloway claimed "that democracy in Cuba is more “free” than in the UK""

He's also said that he thinks it would be morally justified to kill Tony Blair: "Galloway was asked whether a suicide bomb attack on Tony Blair with "no other casualties" would be morally justifiable "as revenge for the war on Iraq?". He answered "Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did.""

(although he did think it would be a bad idea to kill Blair because of the backlash against Muslims that would follow. So, kudos, I guess)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

My issue is not that you were uninformed about Galloway, but this took me like 2 minutes to find out. I had a hard time believing you found out about his environmental positions and managed to miss what he's best known for.

[Vasall des Midas]

"Scott Long, writing in The Guardian, criticised Galloway's claim that "homosexuals aren't executed in Iran, just rapists", pointing out that current law in the country stipulates that "Penetrative sex acts between men can bring death on the first conviction""

Note, he "criticized" it. He didn't try to pretend it was untrue.

[Gustaf]

"Scott Long, writing in The Guardian, criticised Galloway's claim that "homosexuals aren't executed in Iran, just rapists", pointing out that current law in the country stipulates that "Penetrative sex acts between men can bring death on the first conviction""

Note, he "criticized" it. He didn't try to pretend it was untrue.

I'm not following. He is clearly disagreeing with the statement. Are you agreeing with Galloway that homosexuals aren't executed in Iran?

[freefair]

A HP who has acheived a great thing.

[Redalgo]

My issue is not that you were uninformed about Galloway, but this took me like 2 minutes to find out. I had a hard time believing you found out about his environmental positions and managed to miss what he's best known for.

It happens. I look for ties to parties and ideologies before skimming through information on their political activities. Personal conduct and controversies are usually the last things I look at (if at all) because I expect accusations of uncertain veracity that might take me quite awhile to dig into and reach reasonably well-informed conclusions about. The information you provided is quite useful though - I appreciate it quite a bit - and in the future I probably should be less intellectually lazy when reading up on the blokes in these sorts of threads or at the least wait until a dozen or so people have posted to make sure that I didn't miss anything important before weighing in. xP

[Vasall des Midas]

"Scott Long, writing in The Guardian, criticised Galloway's claim that "homosexuals aren't executed in Iran, just rapists", pointing out that current law in the country stipulates that "Penetrative sex acts between men can bring death on the first conviction""

Note, he "criticized" it. He didn't try to pretend it was untrue.

I'm not following. He is clearly disagreeing with the statement. Are you agreeing with Galloway that homosexuals aren't executed in Iran?

There are somewhat conflicting reports on whether or not exceptions to the general principle sometimes occur, and there definitely are a few cases of homosexuals executed where the rape charges were quite dubious. In addition, there are a few cases of people executed on trumped up espionage charges with a charge of sodomy thrown in for good measure.

But as to the general policy... it's just a dumb old fact. Not that the reality is fine, but then Galloway didn't claim that.


Anyways, back on topic.

if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7.

I hope we can all agree that this is true - certainly anyone defending Israel's policy of assassinating Hamas leaders would have to. Though they don't bother to make sure to get only their man, of course.

It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did.

Wait, what? Certainly what Blair did is morally equivalent to 7/7*, and assassinating him, while still not morally acceptable, would not be equivalent?  (This is Blair before he left office, obviously.)

*if it is accepted, for the sake of Galloway's argument, that orders known to cause the "deaths of thousands of innocent people" are the exact same as direct orders to kill thousands of innocent people. Which is not something I'd want to accept, but then the whole sentence doesn't really make sense unless you assume that Galloway doesn't really do so either.

[Gustaf]

"Scott Long, writing in The Guardian, criticised Galloway's claim that "homosexuals aren't executed in Iran, just rapists", pointing out that current law in the country stipulates that "Penetrative sex acts between men can bring death on the first conviction""

Note, he "criticized" it. He didn't try to pretend it was untrue.

I'm not following. He is clearly disagreeing with the statement. Are you agreeing with Galloway that homosexuals aren't executed in Iran?

There are somewhat conflicting reports on whether or not exceptions to the general principle sometimes occur, and there definitely are a few cases of homosexuals executed where the rape charges were quite dubious. In addition, there are a few cases of people executed on trumped up espionage charges with a charge of sodomy thrown in for good measure.

But as to the general policy... it's just a dumb old fact. Not that the reality is fine, but then Galloway didn't claim that.


Anyways, back on topic.

if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7.

I hope we can all agree that this is true - certainly anyone defending Israel's policy of assassinating Hamas leaders would have to. Though they don't bother to make sure to get only their man, of course.

It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did.

Wait, what? Certainly what Blair did is morally equivalent to 7/7*, and assassinating him, while still not morally acceptable, would not be equivalent?  (This is Blair before he left office, obviously.)

*if it is accepted, for the sake of Galloway's argument, that orders known to cause the "deaths of thousands of innocent people" are the exact same as direct orders to kill thousands of innocent people. Which is not something I'd want to accept, but then the whole sentence doesn't really make sense unless you assume that Galloway doesn't really do so either.

I'm not an expert on Iranian law here, but the statement from the other guy seems to clearly be that Iranian law allows for execution even without rape? Not that it is a material point though.

And I see what you mean regarding Blair - it seems a bit inconsistent.

[Vasall des Midas]

Exactly - "allows". It's the theoretical maximum sentence.

One of the more bizarre factoids is that Iran considers transgendered people to be ill - and offers them the cure of a sex change operation. Based on a fatwa of Khomeini's from shortly before he died.

[ChairmanSanchez]

It has been interesting to see the rise of the Green Party and now, RESPECT Party to parliament. I'm hoping the UKIP gets a few seats as well

[You kip if you want to...]

It has been interesting to see the rise of the Green Party and now, RESPECT Party to parliament. I'm hoping the UKIP gets a few seats as well

Respect's already had seats in parliament. UKIP are as successful as the Referendum Party.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Seats or seat? Has RESPECT ever won any seats with anyone besides Galloway?

[ChairmanSanchez]

Seats or seat? Has RESPECT ever won any seats with anyone besides Galloway?

Yeah, I know Galloway was once a Labor MP, but has RESPECT ever gotten beyond him?

[You kip if you want to...]

Seats or seat? Has RESPECT ever won any seats with anyone besides Galloway?

No, it may as well call itself "The George Galloway Party".

[Vermin Supreme]

FF

[Secretary Polnut]

Attention-seeking whore... full stop.

[Χahar]

Seats or seat? Has RESPECT ever won any seats with anyone besides Galloway?

No, it may as well call itself "The George Galloway Party".

Salma Yaqoob did come fairly close to victory at each of the last two elections.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

HP, big time.

[© Tweed the Younger]

When asked to explain the "effect" he has on women, Mr Galloway said: "I prefer the company of women. Because I don't drink, I don't swear, I'm not crude, sometimes male company turns me off. And from an early age I was the person who drove everybody home and I always saved the prettiest girl to drop off last."

[dialectical fetishist]

It has been interesting to see the rise of the Green Party and now, RESPECT Party to parliament. I'm hoping the UKIP gets a few seats as well

UKIP have no chance of winning a seat at the next election.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would say he's probably the worst left wing politician right now in Great Britain. I have zero respect for him and unlike Dennis Skinner, he strikes me as completely disingenuous.

[You kip if you want to...]

George, seething at the PM making fun of him at PMQs today.