What is is with George Galloway?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Wondering what people make of this "maveric" politician, who was able to identify what motivated the London bombers before anyone had even claimed responsibility and while blood was still fresh on the streets.

How he has the gall to call his party "Respect" is beyond me.

lee, Sunday, 10 July 2005 01:55 (eighteen years ago) link

Each side needs a radicalist figurehead for the other to rail against so that moderates and mediators get lost in the noise.

Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Sunday, 10 July 2005 02:11 (eighteen years ago) link

i'm inclined to believe every shitty thing about him. the only unfair thing i see in that: i don't know anything about his actual legislative record. what was he "before" saddam?

g e o f f (gcannon), Sunday, 10 July 2005 04:07 (eighteen years ago) link

Generally-speaking left-wing. 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.

According to what I've read, he had a better-than-average reputation for his constituency work; although I don't know if any of the Glasgow ILXors who have been his constituents would have anything to add to that.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Sunday, 10 July 2005 06:58 (eighteen years ago) link

He's an unabashed Stalinist, which is tantamount to saying "I have utter contempt for humanity". I mean, I have utter contempt for humanity, but in a nice, not-wanting-to-murder-half-of-it way.

Taste the Blood of Scrovula (noodle vague), Sunday, 10 July 2005 07:00 (eighteen years ago) link

GG infamously claimed the collapse of the USSR was the worse event in his life + is close friends with former Ba'athist Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Azis. 'nuff said.

A once 'potential-Labour-leader who threw his considerable talents away becoming a maverick, a admittedly gifted demagogue, + a nasty piece of work. (careful what you say about him too, he rivals Robert Maxwell in his use of the libel laws).

stevo (stevo), Sunday, 10 July 2005 07:11 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't think calling him a vain, pompous, hateful cockfarmer is libellous, is it?

Taste the Blood of Scrovula (noodle vague), Sunday, 10 July 2005 07:15 (eighteen years ago) link

GG is a venal coward, an opportunist of the worst kind. He got his latest seat in parliament by riding the muslim vote in a particularly nasty campaign and he didn't even bother to turn up to the commons for the debate and vote on the incitement to religious hatred bill. Too cowardly to nail his colours to the mast either way, for the bill as his constituents would want or against it as his socialism would dictate. He is a Cunt and I hope I run into him again soon.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 10 July 2005 07:20 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.dsz-verlag.de/bilder/Galloway.jpg

Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Sunday, 10 July 2005 08:52 (eighteen years ago) link

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

--hahahaha what a fuckin dork

A Viking of Some Note (Andrew Thames), Sunday, 10 July 2005 09:44 (eighteen years ago) link

Ed's use of the capital C pretty much sums up my feelings, I think.

Mädchen (Madchen), Sunday, 10 July 2005 09:52 (eighteen years ago) link

So, I just read about how when he was testifying before some U.S. senate hearing on the oil for food program (maybe? i could be wrong), that he completely lambasted the senators who were there and laid waste to the room in a way that had never been done before. And, apparently, the senators were stunned. This made me want to love him, but he's just a jerk, huh? I would still like to see tape of that. Oh, and he was ripping into them about Iraq and all that.

scott seward (scott seward), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:17 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah, it was an ace performance. i have such a love/hate relationship with gorgeous george. pity he's gone so crazy lately

dahlin (dahlin), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:20 (eighteen years ago) link

There's plenty of other parliamentarians who could have taken apart a senate committee like that. There is a huge difference in style between UK parliamentary and US senate debate. Conversely that difference in style could easily allow quite a few US senators to run rings around a House of Commons Select committee.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Hm. I saw his interview on Newsnight after the bombings and he seemed fairly reasonable, actually, although the interviewer was constantly trying to misrepresent everything he said.

People are trying to portray him as being an apologist for the bombers, but in truth he denounced them in the most violent language I've heard from anyone. All he said was that in order to deal with such groups, you have to stop them being able to find new recruits. Invading Iraq, supporting Israel etc. make it much easier for al-qaeda etc. to find new members. Which seems entirely correct to me.

Ed, he won his seat in parliament because his opponent was a slavish supporter of the war in Iraq, which he consistently opposed. What evidence does anyone have to the contrary, other than a conviction that the muslim community is incapable of rational thought and uniformly anti-semitic? If that's the case, how the fuck did the Jewish Oona King win a majority of 10,000 the last time round?

Posadist, Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:25 (eighteen years ago) link

"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.

"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.

"Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are - let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.

"As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.

"You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.

"Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil'.

"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.

"Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.

"You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realise played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.

"There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.

"You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.

"I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.

"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].

"Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.

"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.

"Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?

"Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

"You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.

"But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.

"Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.

"In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.

"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.

"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.

"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."

scott seward (scott seward), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:26 (eighteen years ago) link

"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer."


i kinda have to like him. sorry.

scott seward (scott seward), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:28 (eighteen years ago) link

"GG infamously claimed the collapse of the USSR was the worse event in his life"
--hahahaha what a fuckin dork

The collapse of the USSR was also the worst event in the life of many Russians, who've seen their life expectancy plummet under the new capitalism, mainly due to drug use, alcoholism and STDs.

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:31 (eighteen years ago) link

Russians live in Russia, right? On the whole? Different matter.

A Viking of Some Note (Andrew Thames), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:39 (eighteen years ago) link

There's a real feeling of kill-the-messenger about this thread. Why attack a left wing MP whose opposition to the Iraq war has, if anything, been completely vindicated rather than a centre-right prime minister who has been shown to be completely wrong in his conviction (if it even was that) about WMDs. I get a real sense of "Now that the danger that Tony Blair has exposed us to has now arrived on the streets of London, let's blame George Galloway". Tony Blair is the figure closer to Stalin.

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:41 (eighteen years ago) link

By the way, the caption below the photo from the German magazine reads "George Galloway struggles against the project for a new American century". In other words, he's the nemesis of the neocons.

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:44 (eighteen years ago) link

No time for GG but he is hardly an isolated instance. For example, here is an extract from the editorial The Times, a pro-war newspaper, on Friday:

There may be a few people inclined to make a link between the deaths in London and the intervention in Iraq. This is utterly flawed thinking. .......... London was not targeted because British troops are in Iraq or because of Tony Blair’s alliance with the Bush White House. Rather, London was attacked because these extremists want to ignite a “holy war” between themselves and democratic societies.

So The Times, too, was able to identify what motivated the London bombers before anyone had even claimed responsibility and while blood was still fresh on the streets.

frankiemachine, Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:49 (eighteen years ago) link

Which is why I dig that speech/testimony so much. You have to understand, I live in the United States, where there isn't much of an anti-war movement and where most people are too afraid to speak out against their government. So, It's refreshing to hear someone blast the cowards in charge of the war.

x-post

scott seward (scott seward), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:51 (eighteen years ago) link

Momus, once again you are let down by your insistence on seeing everything in binaries. Just because GG hates the neo-cons does not make him laudable. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

RickyT (RickyT), Sunday, 10 July 2005 10:57 (eighteen years ago) link

I find it really extraordinary that everyone from the Times to the Observer is refusing to see any link between 7/7 and Iraq, despite the fact that the government has clearly said all along that a terrorist attack on London was "inevitable". Why is the government allowed to believe there's a link, but commentators aren't? And why is Galloway blamed for saying explicity what Blair and Straw imply?

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 11:33 (eighteen years ago) link

cos this was likely before the iraq war, momus. don't get me wrong, i think the war was stupid, but it take take an iraq war to 'provoke' 9/11 either.

n_RQ, Sunday, 10 July 2005 11:38 (eighteen years ago) link

cos this was likely before the iraq war, momus.

Are you saying "as likely"? Because we know that security has been ramped up a lot more since the Iraq war. From a purely practical point of view, the authorities have considered that the Iraq war made this kind of event significantly more likely. And I'm curious to see commentators failing to admit what we'd condemn security planners for failing to admit.

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 11:44 (eighteen years ago) link

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

precisely. galloway's core beliefs are admirable; it's the way he goes about things - crass, opportunistic, self-aggrandising - that's so offensive. and, sadly, his modus operandi only serves to detract from the sense in some of what he's saying, and to make him an easy target for the right-wing press etc.

in short: he's a cock.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 10 July 2005 11:45 (eighteen years ago) link

And to be honest I'm really really sick of this line about "there's no logic whatsoever, it's all random, they hate life for no reason, they work without political motivation"... We wouldn't want a police investigation to assume that the bombers were madmen without any motive or any political affiliations, would we? I mean, that investigation would surely fail, because it would be quite incapable of relating any fact to any other, or establishing links of any kind. So why do we allow commentators to utter such inanities?

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 11:48 (eighteen years ago) link

it's more or less the flipside of the 'itsh all about oil' version. this has been made more likely by the iraq war, but we need someone who isn't pro-saddam to say so. the bombers may not be 'madmen', but on the other hand, this violence has acheived nothing but killing innocent people and afearin' the rest of us. if they think it will stop the wars, or cause the abandonment of israel, they are on crack.

n_RQ, Sunday, 10 July 2005 11:53 (eighteen years ago) link

Looking back, it does seem kind of fucked up that they'd say it was "inevitable" without doing a thing to reduce the risk.

grraham (noodles is a cunt), Sunday, 10 July 2005 12:09 (eighteen years ago) link

to be fair, they have tried to prevent it successfully on a number of occasions. other than not invading iraq, i'm not sure what else they might have done, really. from their pov, of course, i-d cards ect would be 'preventative measures'; i disagree, but what do you think they could have done to reduce the risk?

n_RQ, Sunday, 10 July 2005 12:18 (eighteen years ago) link

You said it right there, other than not invading iraq. It wasn't so bloody hard not to send troops. France managed it, and Germany managed it. No bombs in Berlin and Paris, and that's not co-incidental.

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 12:42 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean in the sense of asking "Why is it inevitable?".

grraham (noodles is a cunt), Sunday, 10 July 2005 12:48 (eighteen years ago) link

Ed, he won his seat in parliament because his opponent was a slavish supporter of the war in Iraq, which he consistently opposed. What evidence does anyone have to the contrary, other than a conviction that the muslim community is incapable of rational thought and uniformly anti-semitic? If that's the case, how the fuck did the Jewish Oona King win a majority of 10,000 the last time round?

That's why Oona King Lost, it wasn't why Galloway won, what about the other, equally anti-war candidates. I have never made the suggestion that the muslim community are anti-semitic, I wouldn't dare try and speak for them.

There is no point dignifying the political aims of murderers by giving them the oxygen of recognition.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 10 July 2005 12:52 (eighteen years ago) link

That is not the same as not dealing with the genune grievances and political ambitions of the muslim community or Muslims themselves. But hey why not let them express them rather than assuming any kind of authority to speak for them.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 10 July 2005 12:54 (eighteen years ago) link

george galloway for prime minister of england!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Esteban Buttez!!!!!, Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:12 (eighteen years ago) link

There's a real feeling of kill-the-messenger about this thread. Why attack a left wing MP whose opposition to the Iraq war has, if anything, been completely vindicated rather than a centre-right prime minister who has been shown to be completely wrong in his conviction (if it even was that) about WMDs. I get a real sense of "Now that the danger that Tony Blair has exposed us to has now arrived on the streets of London, let's blame George Galloway". Tony Blair is the figure closer to Stalin.


Total bollocks Momus, especially that last line. I suggest you visit Johann Hari’s blog and try answering some of his "15 questions to supporters of George Galloway”, I’ve yet to hear a convincing answer to any of them:

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=624

One can have opposed the war in Iraq and still find Galloway completely reprehensible.

Regarding the attacks as the result of British involvement in the war in Iraq, as GG suggests (and you seem to be suggesting) is naïve.

The first and the second attacks on the WTC; the embassy bombings in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi; the Bali bombings all predated the war in Iraq.

Were the Casablanca bombings in any way the fault of the Moroccan government for protecting its Jewish community and enjoying good relations with the US?

Were the attacks on the Riyadh compounds justifiable because non-Moslems have no right to reside in holy Islamic lands?

How far are you prepared to go in blaming Blair and co for psychopaths placing bombs in public transport Momus? I’d like to hear it.

BTW OBL’s response to the mass murder of predominantly Ozzie tourists in Bali : Australia deserved it for supporting independence for Catholic East Timor from Islamic Indonesia!

stevo (stevo), Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:22 (eighteen years ago) link

x-post: "england" doesn't have a prime minister, you trolling twat. fuck off.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:23 (eighteen years ago) link

i posted this link on the analysis/reaction thread, but it's so good i'm going to repeat it here:

tariq ali on the cause of the bombings


x-post: oh, for a killfile on ILX.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:25 (eighteen years ago) link

Democracy Now has a transcript of Galloway's remarks on the link between 7/7 and UK government policy. Journalists George Monbiot and Stephen Gray largely support his position, as I do.

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:32 (eighteen years ago) link

re the french and the germans, it does feel abit weird bigging them up. i mean, french firms profit from the occupation of iraq, right?

n_RQ, Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:33 (eighteen years ago) link

tariq ali: 'The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.' his points about n. ireland are obscure. what is he saying? is he comparing protestant-dominated n ireland with us-occupied iraq? it needs clarification. and what about palestine -- what does he mean? that israel should pull back to which borders? or what? as for afghanistan -- the us invaded there because of the terrorist attacks. a full scale military invasion was an odd tactic, but surely taking out terrorist training camps was fair nuff?

n_RQ, Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:44 (eighteen years ago) link

a full scale military invasion was an odd tactic, but surely taking out terrorist training camps was fair nuff?

Bin Laden, like most of the 9/11 hijackers, is a Saudi. He's known with some certainty to be hiding in Pakistan. But Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are US allies, so they invade Afghanistan and Iraq instead. Is that "fair nuff" or just really stupid and cynical?

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:53 (eighteen years ago) link

tactical, really. i'm not advocating the us alliance with the house of saud or with the military dictatorship in pakistan by saying that hitting terrorist training camps in afghanistan after 9/11 was justifiable action. if you're really about 'clean hands' diplomacy, momus, i suggest you look into galloway's xmas holidays over the last few years.

n_RQ, Sunday, 10 July 2005 13:57 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm not into ad hominem attacks. Don't you find it interesting that Tariq Ali, George Monbiot etc all basically agree with Galloway's stance here? And even more interesting that Galloway is really saying exactly what the British government has been saying for years, that our foreign policy has indeed ramped up the risk of terrorism at home?

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 10 July 2005 14:06 (eighteen years ago) link

oh yay! NRQ v. Momus this is sure to be a thoroughly informed and reasoned debate

Marco Salvetti - world moustache champion, Sunday, 10 July 2005 14:14 (eighteen years ago) link

Tariq Ali was commending the Iraqi resistance last time I read him. Not sure if this was before or after the UN compound was blown to pieces, the Egyptian ambassador was killed, Iraqi trade unionists were being slaughtered, or bombs were being placed at Shi’ite mosques. The fact he Monbiot and GG agree with each other is hardly revelatory.

stevo (stevo), Sunday, 10 July 2005 14:18 (eighteen years ago) link

yay! snarky anonymous people! galloway's good points are obvious, they're not really his points, but he is untrustworthy, thus 'ad hominem' attacks (ie on his politics: he holidayed with a high-ranking member of saddam's govt for fuck's sake) are fair game. ali has indeed bigged up the iraqi resistance.

n_RQ, Sunday, 10 July 2005 14:22 (eighteen years ago) link

What's he been up to on his hols? I am from New Zealand, I can't be expected to know.

A Viking of Some Note (Andrew Thames), Sunday, 10 July 2005 14:29 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

so?

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

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

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 (eighteen years ago) link

Like nailing jelly to a wall, there is also the argument that the invasion itself and the handling of Iraq post-invasion, (Abu-ghraib, Fallujah, delay in setting up government and security forces, getting economy back on track etc.) fostered the conditions in which the insurgency could flourish.

Also an Al'Q supporting Sunni kid in the UK is not going to cry for Shia dead in Iraq, but will for the dead of Fallujah.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 20:23 (eighteen years ago) link

newspaper headlines across the arab world denounced the wednesday bomb, where the many shia children were killed, abu aardvark reports

mark s (mark s), Sunday, 17 July 2005 20:27 (eighteen years ago) link

The latest bombings, both wednesday and sunday could well be a watershed on the 'arab street'. Sectarian violence has never been a big part of the muslim experience. There are many parts of the muslim world where Sunni, Shia, Ismaili and Sufi live together side by side along with other more esoteric sects. I don't feel the idea of internecine struggle goes down well with the average muslim.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 20:31 (eighteen years ago) link

AQ's grand strategy is (i would assume) the igniting of civil war in EVERY muslim country — the release of pressure-cooker tensions (religious, cultural and class tensions) in half a dozen corrupt non-democracies, added to a general regional culture where a relative's death unavenged is lasting dishonour to the family, to create the kind of widespread social hell they will thrive in

mark s (mark s), Sunday, 17 July 2005 20:39 (eighteen years ago) link

I don't mean that is any kind of callous way about the muslim mindset; but in the same way that 55 deaths in London resonate more than any number of deaths in Iraq, the casualties in Iraq over the last week are going to have more resonance across the muslim world than those in London.

Ed (dali), Sunday, 17 July 2005 20:40 (eighteen years ago) link

ed, you just articulated what i waas trying to fumble around for. namely, doesnt it feel like that at some point its going to move from US vs the muslim world as personified by the iraqi people, to straight out Sunni vs Shia conflict? i asked a question on the other thread about what would happen following western pull out of iraq. if this is what is wanted by many muslims, then what is the muslim perspective of what will follow? is there a more optomistic lookout on their part?

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 20:55 (eighteen years ago) link

"straight out" conflict: sunni baathist vs sunni non-baathist vs shia vs kurd vs AQ salafists vs ______ vs ______ vs ....

if the full-on civil war comes (which dear god i hope it does not), it will make the lebanese civil war look as simple and bloodless as a chess match

mark s (mark s), Sunday, 17 July 2005 21:02 (eighteen years ago) link

ok i think i have too many questions not related to this thread, and i know too little. ill sit back and observe

ambrose (ambrose), Sunday, 17 July 2005 21:37 (eighteen years ago) link

Tube bombs 'linked to Iraq conflict' (Guardian)

"Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the terrorist attacks in London, a respected independent thinktank on foreign affairs, the Chatham House organisation, says today."

Momus (Momus), Monday, 18 July 2005 02:19 (eighteen years ago) link

doesnt it feel like that at some point its going to move from US vs the muslim world as personified by the iraqi people, to straight out Sunni vs Shia conflict?

The US is the world's prime hegemon, a military-political-ideological prime mover. For this reason, whoever is killing whoever else, it won't be too much of a leap to pin the blame on the US if the US is involved in any way, or has an interest in the outcome of a dispute. The Guardian article says "Britain's ability to carry out counter-terrorism measures has also been hampered because the US is always in the driving seat in deciding policy." Whoever is involved, and isn't the US, is necessarily out of control.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 18 July 2005 02:24 (eighteen years ago) link

"Britain's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the terrorist attacks in London, a respected independent thinktank on foreign affairs, the Chatham House organisation, says today."

And the battle of the Boyne has contributed to IRA attacks. Yes the Iraq war has a bearing on what these people did but it is not the route cause, it is not what started them on the road to terrorism and it's naive to think otherwise.

Ed (dali), Monday, 18 July 2005 04:40 (eighteen years ago) link

"The US is the world's prime hegemon, a military-political-ideological prime mover. For this reason, whoever is killing whoever else, it won't be too much of a leap to pin the blame on the US if the US is involved in any way, or has an interest in the outcome of a dispute." Sadly this is true: too many on the left greatly overrate US power at this time, allow themselves slackly to gaze in horrified awe at just one agent of power in the world; are culturally incapable of granting that anyone but America can cause things to happen. It's a Washington-centric parochialism that puts them far closer to their arch-foes than you'd expect them to be comfortable with.

mark s (mark s), Monday, 18 July 2005 07:50 (eighteen years ago) link

mark s exactly right. if the us really *was* a global hegemon, as wolfowitz *and* galloway agree, then this bloody civil war in iraq wouldn't be happening. as it goes 'hegemony' doesn't imply the level of sheer directive control over events momus is talking about. who wants this war? not the global hegemon.

N_RQ, Monday, 18 July 2005 08:13 (eighteen years ago) link

Of course, to say that "whoever is involved, and isn't the US, is necessarily out of control" doesn't necessarily contradict the statement that "whoever is involved, and is the US, might also be out of control".

Momus (Momus), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:16 (eighteen years ago) link

two weeks pass...
Big Mouth Strikes Again

Vicious Cop Kills Gentle Fool (Dada), Thursday, 4 August 2005 11:20 (eighteen years ago) link

"It can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs and they are defending all the people of the world against American hegemony."

capital stuff, george. the iraqis are doing for "all the people of the world" now.


N_RQ, Thursday, 4 August 2005 12:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Traipsing round Arab dictatorships spouting a lot of knuckle-headed rabble-rousing rhetoric - same as it ever was for Gorgeous George!

Vicious Cop Kills Gentle Fool (Dada), Thursday, 4 August 2005 12:39 (eighteen years ago) link

I was in the same restaurant as GG last night. Should I have said something? Michael Foot was there too but I couldn't summon the courage to complement him, 70 years after the fact, on his poem in praise of Everton FC.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Thursday, 4 August 2005 14:57 (eighteen years ago) link

Michael Foot wrote a poem in praise of Everton? But what about Plymouth Argyle??

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 4 August 2005 17:44 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh, he loves the Argyle but he worked for a shipping company in Liverpool before WW2. From the Daily Post, March 1935:

When at Thy call my weary feet I turn
The gates of paradise are opened wide
At Goodison I know a man can learn
Rapture more rich than Anfield can provide.

In Coulter's skill and Geldard's subtle speed
I see displayed in all its matchless bounty
The power of which the heavens decreed
The fall of Sunderland and Derby County.

The hands of Sagar, Dixie's priceless head
Made smooth the path to Wembley till that day
When Bolton came. Now hopes are fled
And all is sunk in bottomless dismay.

And so I watch with heart and temper* cool
God's lesser breed of men at Liverpool.

(Or temple, as some have it.)

Now on with regular programming.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Thursday, 4 August 2005 20:24 (eighteen years ago) link

Anyone hear him on Today? He was on top form. Accused the BBC of working for the Government because it challenged his views. Wound himself up into hectoring righteous indignation mode and came across as an idiot. Then the programme cocked up by putting on Liam Fox and letting him say the same thing over and over again – Galloway is sad and twisted, to try to explain al qaida is too close to excusing it etc – then when the line went down they called him back up again and let him say it all again.

beanz (beanz), Friday, 5 August 2005 08:31 (eighteen years ago) link

four years pass...
two years pass...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783

Galloway - Assange is only guilty of "bad sexual etiquette".

Matt DC, Monday, 20 August 2012 16:30 (eleven years ago) link

Types of bad sexual etiquette
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bad sexual etiquette can be categorized in different ways: for example, by reference to the situation in which it occurs, by the identity or characteristics of the victim, and/or by the identity or characteristics of the perpetrator. These categories are referred to as types of bad sexual etiquette.

Contents

1 Groth typology
2 Date bad sexual etiquette
3 Gang bad sexual etiquette
4 Spousal bad sexual etiquette
5 bad sexual etiquette of children
6 Statutory bad sexual etiquette
7 Prison bad sexual etiquette
8 War bad sexual etiquette
9 bad sexual etiquette by deception
10 Corrective bad sexual etiquette
11 See also
12 References

A.R.R.Y. Kane (nakhchivan), Monday, 20 August 2012 16:38 (eleven years ago) link

six months pass...

anti-semitic Stalinist does something anti-semitic, film at 11

tochter tochter, please (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:27 (eleven years ago) link

that makes it ok then

Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:28 (eleven years ago) link

glad thats settled

Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:28 (eleven years ago) link

nah, i'm just saying Galloway is a reprehensible human being, what else is there to add?

tochter tochter, please (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:32 (eleven years ago) link

doesnt stop us all moaning about the daily mail

Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:34 (eleven years ago) link

I suppose the american ilxors wont see it in here but maybe its best theyre unaware of george

Vote in the ILM 70s poll please! (Algerian Goalkeeper), Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:36 (eleven years ago) link

George Galloway ‏@georgegalloway
@thomasmessenger an Israeli citizen could not by definition be my constituent.

o_0

lex pretend, Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:37 (eleven years ago) link

i think he means he doesn't understand how electoral law works there, as well as being an anti-semite obviously

tochter tochter, please (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:38 (eleven years ago) link

Was brian cox playing him for laughs on bbc4 last night

lance armstrong will have been delighted (darraghmac), Thursday, 21 February 2013 17:14 (eleven years ago) link

ten years pass...

https://i.ibb.co/Wz4y0Xs/Screenshot-2023-04-12-at-09-47-33.png

George has uncovered a possible US regime change operation against Netanyahu

anvil, Wednesday, 12 April 2023 07:54 (ten months ago) link

He should be all 'Simpsons characters betting on a monkey fight' about this, yeah?

Toploader on the road, unite and take over (Bananaman Begins), Wednesday, 12 April 2023 08:44 (ten months ago) link

George Galloway voted Tory in the last Scottish parliament elections and he should never be allowed to forget it.

Toshirō Nofune (The Seventh ILXorai), Wednesday, 12 April 2023 09:56 (ten months ago) link

two months pass...

The #Russian people are one, indivisible and unbeatable. The sooner western leaders accept that the better it will be for all of us. @MoatsTV https://t.co/r5jNgcGrKv

— George Galloway (@georgegalloway) June 26, 2023

George has discovered that the Russian people are one, indivisible and unbeatable., via his source Kim Dotcom

anvil, Tuesday, 27 June 2023 17:34 (seven months ago) link

good to see the big man back saluting strength, courage and indefatigability once more

rick semper moranis (bizarro gazzara), Tuesday, 27 June 2023 19:03 (seven months ago) link

seven months pass...

2/1 to win in Rochdale

anvil, Sunday, 11 February 2024 18:15 (one week ago) link

me laughing my face off if he wins does not mean a personal endorsement

wang mang band (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 11 February 2024 18:40 (one week ago) link

Labour is focusing resources elsewhere, after its candidate, the Lancashire county councillor Azhar Ali, was repeatedly abused by Deeplish locals. A video doing the rounds online shows him in a takeaway being called “Keir Starmer’s bum chum” while diners shout “free Palestine”.

The Labour candidate made some remarks about 7/10 being a Netanyahu inside job, it's surprising he hasn't been suspended. Grifter George has got the Nick Griffin endorsement. It's as ugly as it gets really, but still hope Labour lose.

vodkaitamin effrtvescent (calzino), Sunday, 11 February 2024 19:01 (one week ago) link

the Green candidate has suspended his campaign after some islamophobic tweets resurfaced (but it's too late to take him off the ballot), plus Simon Danczuk is running for Reform UK so Rochdale voters who want to vote for a terrible candidate are spoiled for choice. There's a reverend running as independent focussing on environmental stuff who seems ok? (haven't done any detailed research, so don't hold me to that if he turns out to be an axe murderer or something)

soref, Sunday, 11 February 2024 19:07 (one week ago) link

This by-election is giving huge "microcosm of the state of politics in England" vibes

wang mang band (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 11 February 2024 20:08 (one week ago) link


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