What is is with George Galloway?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (217 of them)
My East End Bengali colleague reckons that anyone who believes that George Galloway is anything other than an opportunist, narrow minded, populist little shit is an Idiot. We tried to expand further on why his campaign was so bad but it's been really busy today, we'll try tomorrow.

Ed (dali), Monday, 11 July 2005 16:59 (twenty years ago)

I...kind of...agree...with...Momus...on this thread! eep!

Nevada Lime (nordicskilla), Monday, 11 July 2005 17:03 (twenty years ago)

here's a hint: it has something to do with the holocaust!

It'd doubtless another thread, but this seems like nonsense.

Dave B (daveb), Monday, 11 July 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

yay! Momus v. NRQ. This surely turned out to be a thoroughly informed and reasoned debate.

Marco Salvetti - world moustache champion (moustache), Monday, 11 July 2005 22:11 (twenty years ago)

M White's analysis is brilliant.

N_RQ, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 07:39 (twenty years ago)

hstencil, I didn’t say that the Ottoman Empire was an Arab empire, I said it was a muslim empire. And it was the loss of this empire, and the resultant dissolution of the caliphate and secularisation of Turkey, that Arabic Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Bin Laden have repeatedly stated as being one of their main grievances against the West (along with the Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista). In all three cases, what the Islamists object to is the roll-back of expansionist imperialist jihad, and all the sharia-sanctioned oppression of non-muslims that entails.

mahesh, Tuesday, 12 July 2005 07:54 (twenty years ago)

The ottoman empire wasn't particularly any more oppresive of it's non-muslim population that it was of its muslim population.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 07:58 (twenty years ago)

either way, that kind of argument from history is pretty dubious; as with northern ireland, it's local and recent grievances which tend to 'produce' the larger historical interpretation. you don't tend to get jewish terrorists bombing moscow 'because of the pogroms'.

N_RQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 08:06 (twenty years ago)

well put

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 08:11 (twenty years ago)

yes but what if their local (in respect of where?)and recent grievances are things we happen to be proud of?

lee ward (lee ward), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:02 (twenty years ago)

examples?

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:04 (twenty years ago)

(apropos m.white's ref, telling fouché anecdote quoted here)

mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:09 (twenty years ago)

take your point, lee, kinda, but in my specific example, internment was nothing to be proud of.

N_RQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:13 (twenty years ago)

OK, examples.

Multiculturalism
free press
science
jews allowed to go about their business
ditto atheists, buddhists, artists, moslems
ditto women

Islamists have expressed time and time again their fundamental opposition to all of the above.

Of course supporting the war against baathists and fascists in Iraq has increased the chance of our being a target. Why would I deny that?

But that partial list is at least as much the cause.

lee ward (lee ward), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:15 (twenty years ago)

if it was just those things, they would have a much harder job of finding willing recruits

charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:19 (twenty years ago)


how do you know that?

Isn't the rule of the Taliban a test case? Haven't we seen exactly the kind of country the islamists would like to us to live under? This isn't theoreticals. We've seen a country where all of those things were prohibited, and it had NOTHING to do with grievances in the middle east, etc.

lee ward (lee ward), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:22 (twenty years ago)

it may have had something to do with a little-publicised war by proxy between the USSR and the US, though.

N_RQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:24 (twenty years ago)

Multiculturalism
free press
science
jews allowed to go about their business
ditto atheists, buddhists, artists, moslems
ditto women

None of those things come under the heading of ligitimate greivances with the west and are not by and large held by the vast majority of muslims in the world. Things like with continuing situation in palestine and the treatment of muslims in western countries are the sort of issues that concern the vast majority of muslims.

Lee you are confusing 'Islamists' and muslims again and it really isn't helpful. There are also shades of grey in Islamism, compare and contrast, for example, the Taliban with the AK party, currently in power in Turkey and also 'Islamist'.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:25 (twenty years ago)

Read the thread Lee; we're saying that the radical theocrats are hiding their philosophical objections to modernity behind objections to the physical aspects of that modernity that have greater appeal, such as occupying forces, torture, summary execution, corrpution, profiteering and other things that a school kid would point would cause reactions.

Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:26 (twenty years ago)

i think with each time the west is seen marching around the middle east throwing its weight around, the number of potential terrorists increases exponentially.

i think with each time jews read a free press in a multicultural area of a western city with women the number of potential terrorists doesnt increase exponentially. or, at all

charltonlido (gareth), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:28 (twenty years ago)

with respect Ed, I don't believe it's me who's doing the confusing. Do moderate Moslems have bones to pick? Of course they do, and I would agree with most of them, i.e. the fundamental iniquity of the palestinian situation.

But moderate moslems didn't plant the bombs (I'd be willing to bet. Who's betting against?). Moderate Moslems are causing mayhem in Iraq. Moderate moslems weren't in charge of Afghanistan. I could go on?

lee ward (lee ward), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:29 (twenty years ago)

(of course that should read "moderate moslems aren'tcausing mayhem in Iraq")

lee ward (lee ward), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:31 (twenty years ago)

But the only way of 'defeating' the terrorists is to cut off the supply of terrorists, we are not going to do that by giving into terrorist demands, but if we cut down the number of reasons that drive moderate muslims to extremes and beyond (there are plenty of very devout hardcore muslims who dispise the western way of life who don't plant bombs, who see that as abhorrent).

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:32 (twenty years ago)

And it was the loss of this empire, and the resultant dissolution of the caliphate and secularisation of Turkey, that Arabic Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Bin Laden have repeatedly stated as being one of their main grievances against the West (along with the Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista). In all three cases, what the Islamists object to is the roll-back of expansionist imperialist jihad, and all the sharia-sanctioned oppression of non-muslims that entails.

the ottoman empire and the caliphates were vastly different in scope, size, and politics. and as ed pointed out, there are plenty of examples of political tolerance in the ottoman empire (and i would say there are too in the various caliphates, as well). and i don't think this excuses what problems did occur, but it's not like western-style imperialism was any more "nice."

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:33 (twenty years ago)

western-style imperialism probably was a bit nicer the armenians, no? but as i've said on one of these threads, even if we could somehow make reparations for the splitting of the ottoman empire (jesus, just writing it is ridiculous), we would still have terrorists. the crusades are a grievance!!!! fuck off osama, i'm too busy invading denmark to get all the gelt back.

N_RQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

ask any africans about how nice living as part of the british empire was, n_rq.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:41 (twenty years ago)

or any american indians how great it was to be part of the us's manifest destiny, or congolese about the belgians, etc., etc.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:42 (twenty years ago)

yeah, OR ask the armenians how much they dug the ottoman empire! empires, and dictatorships, are fucked!

N_RQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:47 (twenty years ago)

exactly! but it makes no sense to rail on about modern muslims being a part or being complicit in it in any way (even if dipshits like bin laden rhetorically call for a new caliphate), any more than it makes sense to blame you or me for, say, the phillipines and india (respectively) (though definitely we're still living in the benefits of empires).

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:49 (twenty years ago)

yeah, totes. basically i would say on a practical level that out on the streets (ie, i will be blunt, in the english religious centres where the bombers were recruited) the ideological BS needs to be countered, so you don't have history construed as a series of episodes of westerners being mean to muslims: and then they divided up the ottoman empire, and then they went back on their promises and permitted the foundation of israel, etc. of course all that stuff has *elements* of truth, in the same way that the nazis weren't far wrong about the iniquity of the 'guilt clause' in the treaty of versailles. it's the construction of a west vs east master-narrative that needs to be countered.

N_RQ (Enrique), Tuesday, 12 July 2005 12:54 (twenty years ago)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050714/BLASTBOMBERS14/TPInternational/Europe

george galloway, hero to muslim supremacists

slb1, Friday, 15 July 2005 07:32 (twenty years ago)

GG infamously claimed the collapse of the USSR was the worse event in his life

I don't find this remark remotely infamous

He was very big in the Scottish Labour Party in the late 70s, and was occasionally spoken of as a possible future leader; but when Labour started to move towards the centre he was left behind

Future leader? First I've heard. He wasn't "big" in the Scottish Labour Party so much as well known - for being a dickhead. Infamous you might say.

Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 15 July 2005 08:49 (twenty years ago)

slb1, the link you've posted only makes reference to Galloway/RESPECT once:

On its walls were posters from the Respect Party, an extremist pro-Islamic party founded by MP George Galloway, that showed Israeli soldiers pointing rifles at Palestinian children.

So, all we can glean from that article is that Respect has printed posters which show Israeli soldiers pointing rifles at Palestinian children. Is it the people who made those posters who should be chastised, then, rather than the soldiers depicted therein?

Flyboy (Flyboy), Friday, 15 July 2005 10:13 (twenty years ago)

xpost

GG was elected the youngest Chairman of the Scottish Labour Party in 1981.

stevo (stevo), Friday, 15 July 2005 11:28 (twenty years ago)

... then they discovered just what a dickhead he is

Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 15 July 2005 11:30 (twenty years ago)

If you look at the profiles of Marx and the Marxists, they hardly fit the picture of the oppressed proletariat either. They're mostly introspective, privileged, educated young men, often living in relative cultural isolation in foreign countries...

-- Momus (nic...), July 11th, 2005. (Momus) (later)

momus, that's a ridiculous comparison. wtf does that even mean? mohammed atta was like marx? that what marx and engels discovered was comparable with millennarian islam? that you're on crack?

-- N_RQ (bl0cke...), July 11th, 2005. (later)

Hah, my immediate reaction was that Momus was comparing *himself* to Marx and Engels.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Friday, 15 July 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

hes on "any questions" now on radio 4,just got a big cheer from the audience

ambrose (ambrose), Friday, 15 July 2005 18:10 (twenty years ago)

I am not, you big liar!

Momus (Momus), Friday, 15 July 2005 21:11 (twenty years ago)

well there was a scot with idiosyncratic and a certaian turn of phrase on the show...maybe i got the name wrong....hehe

ambrose (ambrose), Friday, 15 July 2005 21:18 (twenty years ago)

Explain to me how war in Iraq or Israel has anything to do with Leeds-born Muslims with Pakistani parents killing Londoners. We are constantly told that suicide bombers are "desperate" people, driven to their fate by the injustice in the world. The British two suicide bombers, Omar Khan Sharif and Asif Mohammed Hanif who killed three and wounded (that includes de-limbing) tens more in Israel come from Derby.

English people and Pakistanis dont blow themselves up because they are so distraught about Palestine. That's crap. Go into a politicised Mosque, read the pamphlets, watch Arabic Television. The incitement to hatred is intense. That's why Pakistanis and British people go out to kill Infidels, and it has fuck all to do with Iraq or Palestine.

Iraq, Palestine, Saudi Arabia's complicity, these are all excuses used by power-mad clerics who get their kicks from sending young men and women to their death killing People of the Book (both Books).
Used as excuses and strong rhetoric tools, aided by the likes of Ken Livingston and George Galloway who both exaggerate and romanticise the jihad in Palestine.

Lovelace (Lovelace), Friday, 15 July 2005 21:54 (twenty years ago)

I dont claim to know anything about the man, but to me he's always come across as genuine, at least compared to others, and it seems like he's trying to bridge a gap between the arab and western worlds which can't be a bad thing

petlover, Saturday, 16 July 2005 22:35 (twenty years ago)

Explain to me how war in Iraq or Israel has anything to do with Leeds-born Muslims with Pakistani parents killing Londoners.

welcome to the jungle!

n_RQ, Saturday, 16 July 2005 22:43 (twenty years ago)

Explain to me how war in Iraq or Israel has anything to do with Leeds-born Muslims with Pakistani parents killing Londoners.

Whether you personally like the link or not—and it's a disturbing one for the politically apathetic, because it implicates us all in decisions our government has made over the years, and makes us all footsoldiers in distant wars—it is something that comes up time and again in reports of the formative thinking in the minds of the people who commit these extreme acts.

The New York Times yesterday published an article entitled Anger Burns On Fringe of Britain's Muslims. It begins:

"At Beeston's Cross Flats Park, in the center of this now embattled town, Sanjay Dutt and his friends grappled Friday with why their friend Kakey, better known to the world as Shehzad Tanweer, had decided to become a suicide bomber.

"He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it," Mr. Dutt, 22, said. "Why, for example, don't they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?"

"It's a double standard, that's why," answered a friend, who called himself Shahroukh, also 22, wearing a baseball cap and basketball jersey, sitting nearby. "I don't approve of what he did, but I understand it. You get driven to something like this, it doesn't just happen."

Later:

That anger stems not merely from unhappiness with the situation of Muslims in Britain, but also solidarity with what they see as the aggressive and unjust treatment of Muslims abroad, and not least from Britain's part in the war in Iraq."

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 17 July 2005 11:50 (twenty years ago)

btw leeds isnt really embattled. well, it was a struggle to scramble out of the trenches as i crawled though the barbed wire on headrow today, but y'know, its ok

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 12:13 (twenty years ago)

also, can i ask a potentially stupid question? there are frequent references to iraqis dying on a daily basis, i am wondering to what this can be attributed. who is killing iraqis? from news reports, it seems that most conflict stems from suicide bombers. how does this change the view that iraqis are dying as a result fo occupation? sure it is a distant resultm, insofar as without the destablisation of the former regime, such conflict wouldnt have arisen, but it almost seems like when people make references to the civilian death toll in iraq, they are more referring to the period of ihnvasion itself.

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 12:17 (twenty years ago)

so?

richardk (Richard K), Sunday, 17 July 2005 18:48 (twenty years ago)

so, who is killing who? is resentment at the US specifically over continuing fatalities in iraq still valid? the bombers are called "insurgents" but they are launching attacks on civilians rather than the occupying forces? ok so its an attempt to hinder any attempts to stabilise the country in the way the US wants it to be, but with this most recent fuel tanker bombing, with 90 people dead in one go, isnt there new lines of conflict being drawn up in iraq? who is killing who? Al-Zarqawi, maybe, why are they/al-quaeda killing iraqis?

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 19:56 (twenty years ago)

Al'Qaeda hates the Shia as much as it hates western liberal democracy, both are apostasies in their eyes. Shia and secular minded sunnis are a easy soft targets now western forces are retreating into their bases.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 19:59 (twenty years ago)

Also today is the anniversary of the ba'athists seizing power, (GG's stalinist mates), hence the huge causalities today. A pragmatic alliance if ever there was one.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 20:03 (twenty years ago)

ok so what about my second question in the last post? ie, at the risk of gross reductionism, shouldnt grievances within the muslim community eg in UK now be directed at.....Al-Qaeda? which doesnt seem to be happening at the moment

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 20:20 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.