George Galloway urges terrorists to attack US in Iraq

[bobman0330]

Link (http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD94805)

From a speech given in Syria. For any Brits in the audience, why do you put up with this?

[daveymck]

Put up with what? Freedom of speech sorry but it is key to the foundations of our freedom.

Galloway has bene a loose cannon for years, he has been attacked at speeches, kicked out of the Labour party ran as an independent in a mainly muslim area on an anti war stance and was elected on that basis. Politically in the UK he is pretty much on his own.

I am unsure what you want us to do.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It's Bush and Blair and Berlusconi who are sick. It's not the Muslims who need to be cured. It's the imperialist countries that need to be cured.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, maybe we should implement a policy to detain indefinitely those who have the arrogance to disagree with us.

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush doesn't have any civilization, he doesn't represent any civilization. We believe in the Prophets, peace be upon them. He believes in the profits, and how to get a piece of them. That's his god. That's his god. George Bush worships money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to admit hes a very good speaker, he doesn't carry it with him on paper either. He was recently re-elected probably because people saw the injustice of him being kicked out of the labour party on trumped up charges. Blair got rid of him because he refused to tow the party line, no other reason.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the children, most of the schools, most of the buses, were bombed by the United States. Let's keep this clearly in perspective: Most of the children who died in Iraq were killed by George Bush, not by Zarqawi.

[/ QUOTE ]

and this is just true, it might be offensive to your sensibilities, but regardless it's still true.

No quotes of him verbally single handedly decimating those US politicans who questioned him over the alleged (read made up) 'oil for food scandal'? Hmm I sense a strong political bias.

Mack

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom of speech sorry but it is key to the foundations of our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, thank you for that insight. My real question was who is electing him to Parliament, and why they continue to do so.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, thank you for that insight. My real question was who is electing him to Parliament, and why they continue to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because hes honest, works hard for his constituency, and he doesn't lie so he can be more popular.

Mack

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Because hes honest, works hard for his constituency, and he doesn't lie so he can be more popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a great guy. So, how mainstream is his opinion that the Arabs need to get their act together so they can save their "beautiful Arab daughters" from the Jews and the Americans?

[jj_frap]

Ugh...I wish it was something saner like "George Galloway urges civil libertarians to attack DEA in Vancouver."

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
From a speech given in Syria. For any Brits in the audience, why do you put up with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brit here.

We put up with it cos he's free to speak his mind. I love the fact he's free to do so. The freedom to articulate ideas and opinions is a good thing, I'd say, despite his appalling sense of both timing and content.

And I'm free to say he's a hateful, self-obsessed, toadying, revolting, subhuman, collaborating, scum-sucking, megalomaniac waste of all 4 dimensions.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Freedom of speech sorry but it is key to the foundations of our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, thank you for that insight. My real question was who is electing him to Parliament, and why they continue to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The constituency he chose to stand in has load of muslims. I bet that clears it up for you straight away.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a great guy. So, how mainstream is his opinion that the Arabs need to get their act together so they can save their "beautiful Arab daughters" from the Jews and the Americans?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very, he says a lot of stuff I disagree with strongly, doesn't make what I said any less true.

Regards Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm free to say he's a hateful, self-obsessed, toadying, revolting, subhuman, collaborating, scum-sucking, megalomaniac waste of all 4 dimensions.



[/ QUOTE ]

and i'd be prepared to die, to protect your right to say it, even though I disagree.

Mack

[Bez]

I'm no fan of Galloway, but why do you put up with Bush?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no fan of Galloway, but why do you put up with Bush?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really blown away by the useful responses I've gotten on this thread. Thank you all so much.

As an elected official, Galloway must be expressing views that are held by some large proportion of his constituents. I was trying to figure out who these people were, and why any non-al Qaeda members would believe this stuff.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
As an elected official, Galloway must be expressing views that are held by some large proportion of his constituents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are being silly, why would you think that, he has his own mind, not parroting the party line or telling people what they want to hear. His recent appearance in the US underlined the massive difference in politics between the UK and US, your guys just can't do the stuff in public. No offence.

Mack

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an elected official, Galloway must be expressing views that are held by some large proportion of his constituents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are being silly, why would you think that, he has his own mind, not parroting the party line or telling people what they want to hear. His recent appearance in the US underlined the massive difference in politics between the UK and US, your guys just can't do the stuff in public. No offence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If true, I find this really unbelievable. The man's been in politics for 20 years and the people who elected him don't endorse his views?? If he was some new-to-the-scene Arnold Schwarzenegger type, I could see how the people who voted for him might expect him to follow his conscience, etc., but the voters must know what someone with such a lengthy record believes.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
For any Brits in the audience, why do you put up with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why have we put with W for so long? An even more important question.

[mackthefork]

Can i ask you, if a US senator was to say something along these lines in public, how would it be viewed? and what would be the consequences? also given your answer, do you think that is fair democracy in action?

In answer to your question yes it is true, mainly because he has many other views besides those on Iraq, some agree, some disagree, I will admit his views on iraq and the middle east are extreme and also that I don't agree with them. He should still be able to say things I disagree with though, without any effect on his employment prospects.

Mack

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
As an elected official, Galloway must be expressing views that are held by some large proportion of his constituents. I was trying to figure out who these people were, and why any non-al Qaeda members would believe this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, why did you not ask it that way. Instead of asking all brits why they "put up" with him. Your question as asked in OP was flippant and you got a bunch of flippant replies, IMO.

[mackthefork]

We have a saying in the UK, that is some kind of veiled compliment, I don't know if you have it in the US. It goes...

'He's not as green as he is cabbage looking'

Most likely applies well to GWB.

Regards Mack

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]

'He's not as green as he is cabbage looking'

Most likely applies well to GWB.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

For Bush, a bit of timely editing would remove the word 'looking'.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I'm free to say he's a hateful, self-obsessed, toadying, revolting, subhuman, collaborating, scum-sucking, megalomaniac waste of all 4 dimensions.



[/ QUOTE ]

and i'd be prepared to die, to protect your right to say it, even though I disagree.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhhh. Thanks.

I wouldn't. I'd just keep quiet and run away.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Freedom of speech sorry but it is key to the foundations of our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, thank you for that insight. My real question was who is electing him to Parliament, and why they continue to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

In our elections in the majority of seats the main party in that area could put up a stuffed monkey in their colours and they would still get elected. As it happened Galloway was kicked out of his normal seat so ran as an independant in a seat in a large muslim population area on an anti war stance.

It did cause divisions I believe even amongst the muslim electorate and there were all sorts of demos some punch ups and basically a dirty campaign there.

As for what MP's do or say once they get to parliment consulting their electorate doesnt really enter their mind until the few months before election time comes up again.

[daveymck]

Theres some good background to his election fight and victory (by 800) votes;

Pre election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4432191.stm)

Fight at Rally (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/england/4464337.stm)

Islamic mob and death threats (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4467147.stm)

Reaction of voters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4521935.stm)

[Chris Alger]

As with Bush and most of his supporters, you appear to have a problem with the truth. Your link contains no statement by Galloway in which he urges any terrorist attack against the U.S., in Iraq or elsewhere. Galloway's argument that Iraqis have a right to defend against foreign aggression -- a right enshrined by international law and acknowledged by every country -- doesn't translate into urging terrorism. If it does, U.S. support for Afghan resistance to Soviet aggression must rank among the foremost terrorist campaigns of all time, and Reagan must have been one of the world's foremost terrorist leaders.

Aside from Galloway's sugarcoating of the sheer barbarity of some of the "resistance" mass murders, Galloway is actually expressing the world's consensus of the morality of the war. The U.S. committed aggression, a much more serious and deadly crime than mere "terrorism," in order to protect and advance its strategic power and interests in what the MSM euphemistically calls a "vital region." Outside the U.S., most people realize the defense-cum-liberation excuses for the war are a joke and that the U.S. is just exercising what it considers it's imperial prerogative. The war in Iraq is unpopular in virtually every country in the world, and outside the U.S. it's not because the U.S. can't win. Look at the Pew research polls showing how much respect and admiration for the U.S. has declined since the invasion. Look at the polls in various countries that identify Bush as a major threat to world peace. A year after the invasion, Iraqis themselves described U.S. forces are occupiers instead of liberators by about 4-1 (after being evenly split when the invasion occurred). The vast majortiy of Iraqis wanted the U.S. to leave either before or "immediately" after the last election (Rumsfeld: we could be in Iraq for a dozen or more years). About half the Sunni community, according to a poll earlier this year, believes that the "ongoing insurgent attacks" are a "legitimate form of resistance." The bumper stickers on U.S. Humvees warn Iraqis to stay 50 yards away or deadly force "will be used." Iraqis are still dragged from their beds at night, imprisoned without charge or trial, raped and tortured by their "legitimate" government. Do you really think that hardly anyone should tolerate Iraqis using guns against those who point guns at them?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
As with Bush and most of his supporters, you appear to have a problem with the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you be a little more smug? More obtuse?

He says that the West is raping the beautiful Arab daughters Jerusalem and Baghdad. He bemoans the fact that Arab countries are too weak to resist conventionally, and he elegizes people who resist with non-conventional tactics. Connect the dots, and quit wasting our time with this disingenuous crap.

(Hint: the right to hide a Kalashnikov in your house and shoot at occupying soldiers is NOT enshrined in any widely accepted piece of international law.)

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, thank you for that insight. My real question was who is electing him to Parliament, and why they continue to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because hes honest, works hard for his constituency, and he doesn't lie so he can be more popular.


[/ QUOTE ]

He's still a crackpot, and supports violence against an ally.

I simply cannot imagine any American politician getting elected who publicly supported or advocated similar violence against the U.K.

Americans would see that such a fellow is a crackpot and a danger and he would therefore garner few votes--regardless of whether or not he was honest and worked hard for his constituency.

Maybe, however, the recent spate of attacks is waking up more Britons--even if it isn't properly waking up kooks such as Galloway.

[partygirluk]

I find Galloway utterly repulsive, but boy can he speak. He is an extremely intelligent man.

[lehighguy]

You sure that third statement is true.

You willing to back it up with numbers. And I don't mean a civilian casualty estimate, what caused those casualties.
Who did the killing? Who started the fight?

If there was no insurgency, would ANYONE in Iraq be killed by fighting?

You also wanna back up that statement about schools, buses, and children bombed ON PURPOSE.

You wanna back up the statement about the proportion of foriegn fighters to homegrown, despite studies to the contrary. Despite the fact that the worst attachs are perpetrated by foriegn fighters.

And the leaders of Iraq are all a bunch of puppets too. Not people elected by the Iraqi people, not people who risk thier own lives to make a better future for thier country knowing the chance of death or harm for them and thier families is incredibly high.

[lehighguy]

I've never understood this rediculous arguement that this is somehow an imperalist power grab. This war is EXPENSIVE AS [censored]. It costs more then all the oil in Iraq. And any financial payoff would be decades in the futute, unbelievably impossible to predict, and entirely unable to make up for the cost of the war.

People who think that the US wants oil from Iraq are about as smart as people who think Isreal was really behind 9/11. It makes no goddam sense at all.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never understood this rediculous arguement that this is somehow an imperalist power grab. This war is EXPENSIVE AS [censored]. It costs more then all the oil in Iraq. And any financial payoff would be decades in the futute, unbelievably impossible to predict, and entirely unable to make up for the cost of the war.

People who think that the US wants oil from Iraq are about as smart as people who think Isreal was really behind 9/11. It makes no goddam sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOW it makes no sense, because the Bush administration totally underestimated the post-war situation, and what it would cost in $ and lives to complete this exercise in nation building.

I believe Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz et al. were being honest when they said Iraq would be a cakewalk, and hence a cost effective exercise in U.S. power that would get rid of a bad guy, and give the U.S. a strong grip on a vital resource, and create for us an instant new ally in the region.

Of course their thinking was flawed, but as is typical, others have suffered immensely for their mistakes, not them.

And your argument that the Iraq war is costing more than all the oil in Iraq is worth, is naive. The proven oil reserves in Iraq are at least 112 billion barrels. Multiply that by current costs of $60+ a barrel..well..you do the math sharp guy.

Frank

[Chris Alger]

In the first place, the public and private sector patrons of those that make U.S. foreign policy get a huge subsidy from a relatively disinterested if terrified public. Yet they reap most of the direct economic benefits. So it doesn't make sense to assume that U.S. foreign policy interests that happen to be economic are look only at tax expenditures versus receipts. The cost of the war (now higher than Iraq's annual GDP) are still less than the potential economic benefits of controlling access to the world's second largest oil reserves and the use of the cash they generate. This is particularly true for elites who can profit both from war spending and from the supply of petrodollars flowing back to enrich U.S. capital markets (like the Saudi's do). And it will be truer still as oil becomes more scarce.

These economic benefits, however, are enhanced by the prospect of long-range political power ("strategic interests") to be had by dominating U.S.-dependent regimes and installing a permanent military presence throughout the Near East and Central Asia, adding to our leverage over Russia, Japan, Europe. Recall how officials described the problem with Saddam before the WMD/terror nonsense started, back when he first invaded Kuwait. They said he'd control too much of the region's resources, he'd use the cash they'd generate to intimidate other countries, he'd advance his own political and interests to the exclusion and detriment of the U.S. And that was just if he took Kuwait. Now the U.S. has at least a toehold on the far greater powerof Iraq itself, or at least the prospect of it. Do you seriously think the U.S. intends to hand it all over to Shiite clerics because U.S. planners have no idea how it should be used to benefit those that matter most to them?

[lehighguy]

Control can easily be achieved from afar. Presence of US troops is entirely unnecessary. We broke the oil embargoes of the 70s by having them fight eachother, not us. Iraq was already selling us oil throughout the 90s. It would continue to do so. If we wanted more oil, we could always lift the sanctions. Oil has gone through the roof in cost since the invasion.

The idea of some kind of military dominance of the ME is absurd. It's costs would dwarf any and all benefits recieved. And each year our troops were there it would become more and more diffucult.

I also think this idea of Bush + Co. doing it for thier own personal gain is rediculous. He has how many hundreds of millions of dollar? When you have that kind of money you don't run for president, put up with the bullshit involved in being president, start a war on false premises, and go down in history as a scoundrel to make a few million more. The cost/benefit doesn't make any sense. If he wanted to make a little more money he could buy some bonds, he doesn't need to run for president.

He's a less conspiracy theory based explanation of events. Bush is an idiot trust fund kid. He runs for president for a variety of idealogical reasons. After winning 9/11 happens and he tries to figure out what to do. He decides police action isn't enough, and announces the Bush doctrine to invade any state that supports terrorists. He is given intelligence stating Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction or the capabilities to develope them. He decides that there is a substantial possibility of this (this is distinct from absolute sureness or even good odds, under the Bush doctrine you only need to have a substantial chance). He also thinks that bringing democracy to a country in the ME might blunt the social problems that are creating terrorists. So he invades.

After the invasion he fucks up supremely. After all, he is an idiot trust fund kid. Between his own stupidity, and the fact that he is under constant political pressure from the left to get out quickly and spend less money (both make accomplishing the goal harder), he continues to run the postwar incompetently.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
You also wanna back up that statement about schools, buses, and children bombed ON PURPOSE.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that, but quite honestly if you kill me I don't care if you did it on purpose or not.

Mack

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Control [over oil and oil revenue] can easily be achieved from afar. Presence of US troops is entirely unnecessary

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell it to the policy planners in every administration since WWII. U.S. military policy is predicated on the assumption that this claim is flatly wrong.

I never suggested that the war was engineered for the personal financial gain of Bush or anyone else in his administration.