Galloway praises Iraq 'martyrs' - (has he gone too far this time?)

[Pert_UK]

"MP George Galloway is being accused of putting UK troops at risk after calling insurgents in Iraq "martyrs".

During a tour of the Middle East, Mr Galloway spoke of "poor Iraqis" using the most basic weapons to write the names of their towns "in the stars"...

"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."...

Mr Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party over his outspoken remarks about the Iraq war. He told Syrian Television: "Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad. "The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will...The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4744685.stm

I often agree with Galloway and his outspoken views, but I just can't see how this is going to help anybody.....Doesn't this count as giving succour to the enemy?

[wli]

1. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

A total withdrawal from Iraq is necessary.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

2. His comments are confusing

The more extreme insurgents who target Iraqi civilians, are these considered martyrs too? In the article he says suicide bombings are wrong, but these are part of the insurgency.

[Pert_UK]

4. I agree entirely....

I know he's anti the war, but he seems to say mutually exclusive things about it.

[ElectroPrincess]

9. I don't think he's out of line at all ...

If one adopts a non hard core Nationalistic perspective: How should European Countries interpret all those hundreds of "so called" safe houses of Al Zarkowi's that were bombed to smithereens by the American Forces?

Now we all have to realize that a one legged Jordanian terrorist could not have possibly spent the night at all those places?

Our 500 lbs bombs might as well be marked "we're looking for the all your babys'' rooms" due to the indiscriminate nature of such munitions.

IMO just because you don't get "up close and personal" like the suicide bombers doesn't make the pilots, helicopter gunners and arty less knowing of significant "collateral damage" - the foregoing carnage kills em' just as dead in their families' eyes.

Yes, state sponsored terrorism through large bombs that kill everyone in it's path qualify these military leaders for charges of similar crimes against humanity.

[Dhalgren]

15. I agree with you. The US and allies (and some here) seem to be

obsessed with the "method" of bombings, when what is most telling is the "motive" for the bombings. One side is killing indiscriminately in order to rob, loot, steal, and establish empire; the other side is doing it to regain control of their own country and oust the invaders. And finally, who would be bombing who/what if the US had just left the toppling of Saddam to the Iraqis?

[allemand]

24. Blowing up Shiite children = "legitimate resistance"?

:eyes:

[anotherdrew]

47. that could be false-flag operations by our death squad guys

Anyway I dont think anyone could "support" blowing up children.

[The Stranger]

170. Blowing up Shiite children = U.S. "shock and awe"

:eyes:

[ovidsen]

26. The US encouraged Iraqis to topple Saddam in 1991

After the UN Coalition and Iraq signed the cease fire ending the Gulf War. It didn't work then, and it wouldn't work now.

The US, and the UN had at least the premise of an honest rationale for invading Iraq in 1991; Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. However, the Coalition's suggestion that Iraqis rise up against Saddam after the March, 1991 cease fire was hindsight run hopelessly amuk.

But the rationales for this invasion are anything but honest, as just about everyone here at DU agrees. Iraq didn't have WMDs, didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and was at best a reluctant, peripheral supporter of Al Quaeda. Instead of paving the way for liberty and freedom in Iraq, the US has opened the door to all out civil war. It would have been far better to have left Iraqis to their own devices, without the poisonous influences of foreign intervention.

Veering closer to topic, if Zarqari is so eager to see an Iraqi "Vietnam" targetting the US and British military, maybe he can do something about the casualties caused by insurgent terror bombs. They seem to be taking far more Iraqi lives than anyone else's. It's not that I want to see more foreign military personnel die in Iraq; I most certainly don't. It would just be nice if fewer Iraqi civilians did.

[Frederik]

55. The problem is

that quite a few of those who wish to oust the invaders with kamikaze operations are very indiscriminate about the "collateral damage" they take with them. Incidentally, the ones who employ this tactic seem to overwhelmingly belong to the small minority faction of the insurgency that is not comprised of Iraqis, but rather of jihadists from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who appear to have as little regard for the lives of ordinary Iraqis as the thinktankocrats in the American Enterprise Institute have.

Most of the insurgency is comprised of Iraqis who fight with a certain code of honour, as evidenced in the US tactic of using children as human shields, because insurgents don't normally shoot when children might be harmed. Those are the ones who fight for their country. The ones who blow up a dozen children for the chance of killing maybe three Americans, in addition to themselves (which happened a couple of weeks ago), don't give a shit about the Iraqi people.

And yes, of course the US has killed far more innocent Iraqis than Saudi jihadists could ever hope to accomplish. But two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

[Frederik]

41. Pandering to his constituents?

I usually defend him, and I think he's a valuable alternative voice in Britain, who seems to get an unfair amount of unfounded criticism, but he is dependent on Muslim voters to keep his seat in the Parliament, isn't he? His rhetoric is a little confusing, and I'm uncomfortable with the way he sometimes uses the word "Zionists", or talks about "foreigners" occupying Jerusalem (though I don't think there's any reason to believe he's anti-semitic in any way, based on what I've heard and read).

I think armed resistance against US and British soldiers in Iraq is legitimate - I can't see how one could possibly argue otherwise, without taking a consistently pacifistic stance - and I don't know if the tactic of using kamikaze operations in guerrilla warfare is illegitimate in itself. Maybe it could be argued that it is, but how much of a moral difference is there between a daredevil manoeuvre with a high probability of resulting in the death of the attacker, which one would normally call "brave", and a suicide bombing?

However, most suicide bombers in Iraq seem to be very indiscriminate about who they kill, even though the intended target is usually either US forces or, most of the time, Iraqi police. Contrast that with the majority of the home-grown insurgents, who use conventional guerrilla tactics, who don't fire when there is a risk of harming children (evident in the US tactic of using children as human shields). There is nothing noble about this carelessness with the lives of civilians on the part of certain factions in the insurgency, which incidentally seem to be the parts of it that is not comprised of Iraqis.

So I don't particularly care for this romanticizing of the "martyrs".

[Frederik]

57. But he and the Respect party condemn

suicide bombings. I somehow managed to miss that. Then I don't see the problem with the word "martyr", really. Of course, I agree about Baghdad being "raped" and all the rest, and that the insurgents are in effect fighting against American hegemony. And it's a fight they are winning.

[malaise]

3. So what would you call Americans

who stand up and fight if another country lies to the world, violates international law and invades your homeland with weapons of life and property destruction?

How would you feel when the invaders soldiers knock down the doors to your home and violate your rights.

[Pert_UK]

7. Depends whether they were blowing up kids and civilians........

I'm just saying that it's not helpful to use terms like "martyr" unless you're very, very careful about how you do it.

Galloway should be clearer about exactly who he's praising here...the suicide bombers who blow up crowded markets? To me, that's wrong regardless of the situation.

[pdurod1]

17. Patriots = Martyrs?

I think most Americans would fight an intruder if our country was invaded. Our ancestors did against the Brits, "the minutemen", "remember the Alamo," (another war) (correct me if my history is off).
Were we considered insurgents? Patriots? The American people need to be reminded of our past and asked these kinds of questions.

Not having a broad coalition in the first place is huge, not having legitimate reasons for invading Iraq are now leaving the US isolated. Halloway is just speeding up the process. We need to find a way to isolate this administration in this same regard by using somehow these kinds of arguements.

Most rethugs will use Halloway's comments against the left even though we are patriots (I personally, served 6 years w/ field artillery --hate this stupid Iraqi war). I've been blasted on a military re-union site for my views. Some have quit because of me also, but the good news is that I'm not alone.

[Cha]

86. Thanks for Serving and I

especially agree with this..

"Not having a broad coalition in the first place is huge, not having legitimate reasons for invading Iraq are now leaving the US isolated."

I don't think that civilians should be blown up by the Americans & British Or the Insurgents.

It didn't bother bush&blair when they blew up civilians..the big losers here are the Iraqi People, AGAIN.

This is All on bush and blair. Of course, they didn't have a plan after the initial bombing to smithereens. They didn't think :think: that the Iraqis wouldn't want someone else to rule their land.

[thebigidea]

5. just imagine what Iraqis make of our calling occupation soldiers heroes

i'm sure its a similar reaction.

uh oh, Bill Bennett is gonna chide me for "moral relativism" now! How dare I try to see both sides of this grimy picture!

[leftchick]

6. you are going off message comrade

And it is an excellent comparison.

[StrafingMoose]

8. Galloway would be safer...

By making a difference between the "martyrs" and the homegrown resistance.

The martyrs killing kids and civilians are playing it right into the Americans' hands, but those who actually carry out anti-coalition operations are legitimate if the coalition are setting sticks in the wheels of thier implication in the political process (which might include a wish to nationalize the oil).

[malaise]

66. Safe is useless - I'm sick of politically correct

bull. The invasion was illegal and thousands of innocents have been killed. I just put on Lennon to remind myself that All I want is the truth.

[StrafingMoose]

126. with that kind of comment...

you'd be categorized as "phony left" ... The suicide bombers killing Iraqi civilians shouldn't be hailed as heroes because the invasion was illegal -- there's no logic tie between the 2 arguments.

By hailing suicide bombers and people who launch attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, you are hailing possible CIA (or whatever other foreign intel agency) hired assets. Great. "Phony left".

[Greeby]

10. Umm, how does this help?

Anyone else think he's neglected his constituency since he won it? I've not heard a word about it from him in his public pronouncements.

I'm beginning to wonder why he ran for one of the poorest constituencies in London if he's going to spend his time essentially preaching to the choir over Iraq? How does it benefit the people that elected him? (People in the Middle East and in this country will look at the speech and say "well duh!"")

If that's all he wanted, why not pick a rich place that could take care of itself while he focused on this?

[ElectroPrincess]

11. At least one of our Brit cousins has the COURAGE to

speak out. Methinks like the DLC contorts Howard Dean's statements, many of the RW UK people are attempting to also discredit Galloway.

He strikes me as a Brit version of Paul Wellstone with regard to not being afraid to SPEAK OUT regarding the immorality of declaring illegal wars and an occupation of a sovereign country.

I admire Galloway's courage. Look at our spineless Democratic Representatives? I'd take a man like Galloway to replace Biden, Feinstein, Lieberman, Clinton, etc. any damn day. :P

I've been politically depressed (saddened) since Paul Wellstone died for he'd be speaking out now AND getting his message contorted and taken out of context also by the war's enablers/promoters.

May God Bless the Peacemakers like the late Paul Wellstone and our present Brit Cousin Holloway. I only hope he stays away from small planes and/or spontaneous walks in the woods. :tinfoilhat: ;)

[geek tragedy]

38. Paul Wellstone would never sip tea with fascists like Saddam and Tariq

Aziz, salute their courage, and call them his dear, dear friends.

Nor would he claim that Al Gore's position on Iraq was a result of 'Zionist' bribes.


You soil his memory by comparing him to a fascist-loving asshat like George Galloway.

[progressivebydesign]

61. No, but RUMSFELD would n/t

[Maddy McCall]

121. Indeed he did.

It's not Paul Wellstone clutching Saddam's hand in an affectionate handshake in that old video still, is it?

[geek tragedy]

130. You're right. One could never compare Paul Wellstone to Donald Rumsfeld.

One can compare Galloway to Rumsfeld.

Which is why the notion that Galloway deserves praise is simply abhorrent.

[othermeans]

143. Like Galloway said in his congressional testimony: "I Senator met with

Sadaam Hussein the same number of times that Secretary Rumsfeld met with him. The only difference was that I was trying to save Iraqi children and Mr. Rumsfeld was tring to sell weapons."

[geek tragedy]

147. And now he wants to save Tariq Aziz from even having to stand trial!

How many children's lives will that save?

[Benbow]

12. Fewer or no more suicide bombers in the UK = benefit, in my book

"How does it benefit the people that elected him?"

If it means that we can go back to daily life that is not threatened by suicide bombers galvanised by what is happening in Iraq, that would be a considerable benefit to Galloway's constituents (and the rest of us in London especially).

[ElectroPrincess]

14. Who or What exactly qualifies as *our* enemy?

I suggest that complacency, ignorance and an absorption of highly sophisticated PROPAGANDA are OUR core enemies.

As long as we hate those "little brown people" over in the Middle East, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and many other *HUGE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS*, e.g. war profiteers galore, will continue to enjoy financial windfalls and the expense of the lives of our precious children?

Hello? The "powers that be" are playing us with the "perpetual war for perpetual peace" fan dance rhetoric.

IMO it's worth working for peace instead of hate and war. It's the oppression and occupation of people that bring out this HORRID (suicide bombings of civilians and innocents) behavior. Yes, it horrid and unforgivable in our eyes ONLY because we have a strong military.

In essence, we don't deserve to claim the high ground and wear white hats as Americans, just because we have the military strength to enjoy the luxury of not killing AS MANY innocents. We are doing LESS evil, but we are still - not even close to righteous.

[geek tragedy]

46. Stating that Jerusalem is an Arab daughter who is being 'raped' by the

West is not the rhetoric of someone interested in preventing anti-Western violence.

He's a Baathist more than anything else.

[Taxloss]

43. I hardly think that making inflammatory statements on Syrian TV

is going to discourage suicide bombers in the UK.

[Benbow]

166. It's called distancing yourself from George Bush

and I think that we should be doing a lot more of that.

[0007]

109. I'll take George Galloway any day over Tony Blair.

One speaks the truth and other man lies while his countrymen die. Guess who I'm talking about? Blair will be sitting with John Major real soon with the Carlyle boys. Well, dud!

Hooray for George Galloway!

[evermind]

13. From reading the article, there's no indication he's using "martyrs" to

refer to suicide bombers

In one speech, the MP said: "These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable.

"We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders."

This seems to me to be a reference to those Iraqis who have engaged the US in places like Al Qaim, etc., with more conventional weapons (the Kalashnikovs which are mentioned, for example).

"We don't know the names of their leaders" would tend to rule out Zarqawi's lot, in particular.

However, he is clearly saying he supports the resistance. (If the speech is reported accurately.) I doubt whether this is the best political strategy he could have adopted!

(Edit: speling)

[ElectroPrincess]

16. Well, given the fact that our Democratic Leaders are willing

to sacrifice more of our children as cannon fodder ... albeit I concur that his wording could have been less harsh -

well, dammit, at least he has the courage to speak out for an immediate withdrawl of Iraq, unlike 95% of the American Sheeple and most liketly 99% of our elected representatives.

If you don't have a child around draft age, then you just can't relate to the fear of having to potentially sacrifice them to Bush's Oil Wars.

Words can not describe how afraid I am FOR our younger generation, 18-35 y.o.

[youspeakmylanguage]

53. An immediate withdrawl...

...will result in what kind of Iraq? One that is stable and peaceful, or one ripe for takeover by Wahabi extremists, terrorists, or the Taliban?

[Frederik]

68. Continuing the occupation

would result in what kind of Iraq? One that is stable and peaceful?

[youspeakmylanguage]

81. If we continue to push for accountability and reason, then yes...

...I happen to believe that. I'm discouraged by the bad decisions we've made in the past, but I believe that we can still do some good before leaving.

[Frederik]

104. Then we disagree on that

I don't think that possibility exists, no matter what decisions are made, and however good the intentions might be. Not at this point.

"If we continue to push for accountability and reason"

You mean "begin to".

[youspeakmylanguage]

107. "We" as in progressives...

...not our goverment.

I hate the occupation as much as you do. But I don't believe that just up and leaving will lead to a better life for Iraqis and a stable government for Iraq.

Perhaps you can explain to me how that would happen if we just left?

[Frederik]

138. It wouldn't, probably

the point is, the occupation isn't contributing anything of value. It is merely delaying the inevitable. It's an insufferable limbo for the Iraqi people which should end sooner rather than later. What must come, must come. I see only increasing instability under a continued occupation anyway. The most recent attacks have been perpetrated by Iraqi police. They say it's "infiltrators", but judging by the report in the Washington Post a month or so ago by two of their journalists who had spent some time with one of the units, they all hated the Americans and joined the police only because they were starving and desperate. They talked with admiration about the insurgents, and sang songs to the praise of their great leader, Saddam Hussein.

I just don't see the "stability" that could come out of this situation.

[Dhalgren]

19. Sometimes, when the wrong is so egregious, the political

considerations have to take second place to human considerations. You can't negotiate with fascists who are bent on killing and stealing for world ownership; you cannot cajole them; you can't compromise with them. Fascists must be confronted, opposed, fought and brought to the bar of justice - always. No second option - it is, after all, for all freedom-loving peoples, a fight to the death...

[ElectroPrincess]

69. Yes, they said the same things about the Commies and

How Vietnam would be one of the first DOMINO'S. Remember the "Domino Theory" of Communist Aggression?

Bullshit! What I know for sure is that we will lose thousands more young men and women to no avail. Do we consider those "little brown people", you know the NATIVE Iraqis too *stupid* to come to some sort of resolution. The Iraqi people are fiercely nationalistic, with or withOUT our help they will evict foreign invaders.

We need to get out now. If not we will leave after, say 58 to 60 thousand of our children die for Bush's Oil Wars.

Don't kid yourself for one minute that even our DLC Democratic representatives give a DAMN about the Iraqi people. It's all for corporate profits of the Military-Industrial machine. PERIOD!

[Dhalgren]

93. Right-fucking-on!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. Aren't you the Brit that supported the cold-blooded killing of the....

...Brazilian by plainclothes police that held the man down and shot him repeatedly in the head?

In light of that, how then should one interpret your current interpretation of Galloway's remarks as "giving succour to the enemy"?

And just how did the Iraqis become the enemy of the British and American people when not a single Iraqi was on the planes of 911, and there were NO connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Whatever happened to the Iraqi WMDs that both the U. S. and British governments used to justify attacking Iraq in the first place?

Here's a question for you...if a larger and much more powerful country had invaded the UK based on blatently false accusations, how do you think the Brits would have reacted?

[Cha]

99. All Good Questions! Sorry I can't

be the one to answer them for you.

But, I'll be looking to see if they get answered.

[KittyWampus]

20. Long as he isn't referring to the Jihadists crossing the borders into Iraq

but then, those guys aren't technically called 'insurgents'.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. I don't know if he meant what he said, but I know why he said it...

His name is in the papers again.

[leesa]

22. The Iraqis aren't his enemies nor are they mine.

Just because our demented leadership says they are doesn't mean anything. They were invaded when they did nothing to us, they are fighting against us to regain their freedom. Sorry, won't play the nationalism game.

[Taxloss]

23. I wonder how this improves the lives of the people of Bethnal Green.

I wish DU would adhere to a genuine Brit leftist, like Tony Benn or Michael Foot. If only Paul Foot was still around.

[K-W]

29. Is anyone from that district serving in the illegal occupation?

Do any of them pay taxes to fund the illegal occupation?
Do any of them care that British soldiers are dying for the cause of murdering Arabs?

Are you honestly arguing that the Iraq War isnt an issue that effects people in the UK?

And did you not read the article and see that his OPPONANTS are the ones who spawned this article, not George Galloway. This is an article about the criticisms being levelled against him.

[Taxloss]

33. I know that the Iraq issue affects us all,

but GG is being nothing but provocative here. And I fail to see how that benefits his constituents.

[K-W]

35. How is speaking the truth provocative?

And again, how do your fail to see that this is very much benefitting his constituents because thier lives and livelyhoods are deeply and negatively effected by UK foreign policy.

[Taxloss]

40. Calling Israelis "foreigners" who are "raping" Jerusalem is provocative.

I'm no fan of Israel and stand absolutely with Palestine, but I don't see how that helps anything other than extremism. That is not "speaking the truth".

[K-W]

44. Indeed I misspoke, it is provacative.

it is intended to provoke a response, that response being a change in policy.

How dare you critisize someone for trying to provoke a positive change? And exactly how are you standing with the palestinians if you think trying to provoke a change in policy is inappropriate?

That is not "speaking the truth"

Really, what wasnt true about it?

[Taxloss]

48. Supporting Palestine is not the same as suggesting Israel should be

driven off the face of the Earth. What part of calling Israelis foreigners don't you understand? He publicly advocated the destruction of Israel. How dare you defend that and call it a "positive change"?

[K-W]

56. Wow, just wow.

Your argument is rediculous.

I dont know where you learned to speak english, but you are vastly mistaken on the definition of the word foriegner. Calling someone a foriegner does not in fact imply that they should be driven off the face of the earth.

[Taxloss]

59. It implies that they do not belong where they are.

And it's hilarious that a post should accuse me of having English as a second language - untrue, but it's revealing you think it would be a demerit if it was my second language - while spelling the word "foreigner" wrong twice. foriegner?

Galloway said that the Israelis were raping Jerusalem and urged Arabs to to rise up and fight them. Galloway's definition of the word "foreigner" means, clearly, in this case: outsider, invader, usurper, alien. And he puts the Israeli state on the same level as the government of Iraq. The current Israeli government is immoral and evil, but Israel has a right to exist. Galloway denied that.

[beam me up scottie]

95. He spelled ridiculous wrong as well.

Telling, isn't it?
:rofl:

[K-W]

103. Its almost as if I type fast and dont care about spelling.

Real telling. What is especially telling is when people point out your spelling errors because they cant counter your arguments.

[Taxloss]

112. But ... but ... but ... you criticised my use of language first!

Which clearly means you can't counter my arguments.

Would you like to discuss the OP?

[K-W]

115. No, I critisized a part of your argument, the meaning of a term. Sheesh.

And in return you critisized my spelling, something that bore absolutely no bearing on my argument.

[Taxloss]

132. Right, so let's bring it home.

Chambers 2003.

FOREIGNER: belonging to another country; from abroad; relating to or characteristic of or situated in another country; alien; extraneous; not belonging; unconnected; not appropriate.

Is that clear enough yet? Shall I try the OED as wel?

[K-W]

137. Thanks for proving me right.

To the arabs who already lived in that land the Israeli's were foriegners when they entered it and took it over. That is all George Galloway implied and by your definition he was right.

[geek tragedy]

145. Why do you and Galloway live in the past? This is 2005, not 1948.

On planet Earth, in the year 2005, Israelis are not foreigners in their own land.

And he says they ARE RAPING Jerusalem.

Your effort is great, though not entirely honorable or honest, in defending this despicable man.

[Taxloss]

153. So you DO support the destruction of Israel.

You consider Israelis extraneous; alien; not appropriate.

[K-W]

159. Of course not, that is absurd. EOM

[geek tragedy]

161. Do you think Israelis are foreigners in their own country? Do you think

that Israelis are raping Jerusalem?

[K-W]

100. Do you own a dictionary?

And it's hilarious that a post should accuse me of having English as a second language - untrue, but it's revealing you think it would be a demerit if it was my second language - while spelling the word "foreigner" wrong twice. foriegner?

First I never accused you of having English as a second language. I wondered where you learned the language since you seemed to be struggling with it. Plenty of people who only know english know it poorly, I dont know where the "second language" thing came from.

Why would I think it a demerit? It would mean that your ludacris argument was a mistake instead of just a ludacris argument.

I think its funny that you think pointing out my idle spelling errors excuses the fact that you keep applying blatently false definitions of the word foriegner.

[Taxloss]

106. Actually, I own several dictionaries.

I work as a writer and editor. But if you're going to criticise someone's language skills, be prepared to get as good as you give.

I think Galloway's meaning was fairly clear. What do you think his meaning was?

[K-W]

111. You think idle spelling mistakes are the same as gross distortions

of meaning?

Perhaps an editor might equate all mistakes, but I think reasonably we can say that my not paying attention to spelling was not quite on the same level as your fanciful use of the word foreigner.

"I think Galloway's meaning was fairly clear. What do you think his meaning was?"

I think he meant exactly what he said. That the palestinian city of Jerusalem was taken over by Israel. Is that not the case?

[Taxloss]

114. So you think Israel has no right to exist?

[K-W]

119. Of course I dont think that. EOM

[Taxloss]

123. Do you think Israel has no right to Jerusalem?

[K-W]

134. I dont think nations have rights,

I support an outcome that gives both the Palestinians and Jews equal rights to live in and utilize the city.

[Taxloss]

140. So why do you think Israelis are "raping" Jerusalem?

Why do you support this vile man's hate-filled outbursts?

[K-W]

146. I never said I did. EOM

[geek tragedy]

148. Galloway did. Why are you defending his claim that Jews/Israelis

are raping Jerusalem?

[The Stranger]

178. Ask a Palestinian,

maybe one who was ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem, or who is now under occupation there.

[geek tragedy]

189. Are the Jews of Jerusalem foreigners? eom

[Benbow]

167. Israel has no right whatsoever to assert sovereignty over Jerusalem

[geek tragedy]

179. Says who? It's been a part of Israel since 1948. eom

[Taxloss]

180. Does Palestine?

[Benbow]

182. Does Palestine what?

[Taxloss]

186. Do the Palestinians have a right to Jerusalem?

[youspeakmylanguage]

60. Calling an Israeli a "foreigner" within Israel is a backhanded way...

...of admitting support for the elimination of Israel. That isn't very hard to understand.

Of course, you don't seem to understand the difference between opposing the policies of Sharon's government and supporting the elimination of Israel AND supporting those who would kill civilians to achieve that end.

[K-W]

108. So you are telling me that when Israel first entered Jerusalem

they weren't foreigners?

[youspeakmylanguage]

116. LOL. I guess if you want to go back to when Jews first came to Jerusalem..

...then I think pretty much all of us could be considered foreigners, no matter where we live, unless we're decedents of Romans living in Rome, Greeks living in Greece, Africans living in Africa...

[K-W]

131. Yes, at any point in history where people from one area

go into another area, they are foreigners. This is exactly my point. Galloway was fairly obviously referencing the Jewish takeover of Palestinian Jerusalem, where the Israelis were obviously foreigners in that time and place.

Now it is no surprise at all that this status would then become an issue of contention for Muslims. And that the word foreigner would become entangled in every aspect of that hatred and resistance. But that doesn't change the definition of the word or implicate everyone who uses it.

[geek tragedy]

133. So, Galloway is saying that Jerusalem is being raped by Jewish invaders?

At least he's not anti-Semitic!

By the way, you do know that this is 2005, not 1948, right?


It is not honest to describe Israelis as being foreigners in Jerusalem.

[Taxloss]

136. Weren't the Jews there first?

[K-W]

141. Not that I know of. EOM

[Taxloss]

144. Well, Judaism is older than Islam.

[K-W]

150. So what?

To the best of my knowledge the first people on that land were an ancient race that no longer exists as such and was the genetic and cultural root of multiple current ethnicities. There is a reason that Muslims and Jews have overlapping theology.

But who cares? It doesnt matter historically who's ancestors lived there, by that logic the whole world has alot of moving to do. What matters is who was living there at the time we are discussing.

[geek tragedy]

154. And those people are Israelis. Unless this speech was given in 1948.

Do you think Galloway was lying when he said that Jerusalem was being raped by foreigners?

[Taxloss]

155. It seems to matter to Galloway.

What time are we discussing? Now? Or 1948?

[K-W]

162. No it doesnt seem to matter to Galloway.

What seems to matter to Galloway is the facts surrounding the current condition of the region. And if you think 1948 is irrelevant to that I want a little of whatever you are smoking.

[Taxloss]

165. What facts?

GG said foreigners were raping Jerusalem. Is that a fact? Is that the "current condition of the region"?

[K-W]

171. Do you really need me to tell you what facts are?

His description of rape was obviously subjective description of the current and recent historical condition, not raw facts.

[Taxloss]

177. So you really feel that Jerusalem is being violated by outsiders?

Because that's what GG said.

[Benbow]

183. Ah, I can guess what GG meant - the Israelis who are ex USSR, ex US

ie Israelis from the diaspora who have gone to Israel and, for instance, set up illegal settlements on Palestinian land. That makes complete sense. Some of the most aggressive Israelis I have ever heard interviewed are Jews from the diaspora who have gone to live in Israel.

[K-W]

184. My views are not his views. EOM

[Taxloss]

196. So you disagree with him?

Finally ...

[The Stranger]

175. Not that the age of a religion (whatever that means) matters,

but "Jerusalem" got its name from the local Canaanite god "Shalem."

Hint: Someone was always there before . . .

[Colorado Blue]

188. Give me strength. Jerusalem has been a Jewish city for

thousands of years, sustaining a majority Jewish population. Modern Israel is built on the bones of that ancient community, Jerusalem is her capitol and most Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, although many have fled oppression in Europe as well and some are from Africa, from the Americas and even as far away as India.

The tragedy is that people can't somehow figure out how to share, to respect one another's history. However attempting to portray Israelis as aliens in their own land, where there has been a continuous Jewish presence since long before there was even a word "Palestine", is inflammatory and bigoted.

Galloway is advocating violence, even as he is attempting to delegitimize the people of Israel and their struggle to survive - and their rights are every bit as compelling as those of the Arabs.

I find that reprehensible and have no patience with this demogogue, nor should any progressive who by definition should support non-violence and compromise over irresponsible rabble-rousing. Even during his campaign against Oona King, racism reared its ugly head and in subsequent rallies in London Galloway has stood side by side with radicals advocating the destruction of Israel.

As for the comment that the current government of Israel is evil, that's bullshit. The current government of Israel is attempting a unilateral withdrawal from the OT, lacking any peace agreements whatsoever and in the face of great political resistance and resistance from many who believe that, lacking any peace agreements, this will only weaken Israel from a security standpoint. It is a courageous thing to do and one can only hope it will bring a peaceful resolution to the problems but many predict another intifada, with demands this time to vacate Tel Aviv.

In any case this is a complex situation and inflammatory commentary doesn't help one little bit - either from politicians or on internet forums.

[Benbow]

169. I think that bedouin tribes were there first

[geek tragedy]

125. Absolutely. It is logically impossible to call Israel a foreigner inside

its own territory.

[Frederik]

63. How do you interpret

the use of the word "foreigners" to describe Israelis living in Jeruslam? Since you seem to imply that this is "telling the truth"?

[malaise]

85. How many of the people living in Israel

were actually born there? Define foreigner for me. In international relations terms, how can religion define nationality. Were the Palestinians born in Israel because they have been the main victims here.

And yes, one of my grandfather's was Jewish.
<edit - sp>

[geek tragedy]

91. Do you think Mexicans who become US citizens are foreigners?

How about Asians who become US citizens?

Galloway is a pan-Arabist/Baathist who wants Israel pushed into the sea.

[Taxloss]

97. Oh dear. In terms of Galloway's comments, "foreigner" clearly means

interloper, someone who does not belong, alien, someone who must be expelled, outsider. As in: Israelis have no right to be in Jerusalem. They are "raping" the city. They must be expelled. I thought Galloway made it clear.

None of my relatives are/were Jewish, if that matters for some reason.

[Frederik]

113. The Israeli state exists

It is up to the Knesset to define who is a foreigner and not, and how Israeli nationality is to be defined.

"Palestinians born in Israel because they have been the main victims here."

I certainly agree on that.

"And yes, one of my grandfather's was Jewish"

One of my grandfathers was Danish. That doesn't make my views on Denmark any more or less valid than those of people without Danish ancestors.

[geek tragedy]

49. His goal is to pander to people who HATE the UK, the US, and Israel

People who hate the UK and US, and who want to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth are Galloway's base.

This is a man who said "Unto Jerusalem" while praising Saddam.

As I said, he's on the side of Hamas and the people murdering Iraqi trade unionists.

He is not a progressive--he's a reactionary leftwing semi-fascist.

[Benbow]

174. If he persuades them to hate the UK a bit less, that's just fine by me

I don't think that we have yet seen the worst that the USA can do to Muslim countries, and I want the UK not to be implicated in whatever atrocity the current US administration has next in mind for the Middle East.

I like Muslims; I admire and respect Arab tradition and culture. I want to be able to travel safely to Arab countries. I would happily sacrifice any chance of ever visiting the USA - decadent, belligerent, inward-looking, ignorant - if it meant that Muslim countries would always welcome me.

And I am a (liberal) Christian.

[geek tragedy]

185. I'm sorry, but I can't join you in your hatred of my country.

Toodles.

[ElectroPrincess]

221. Can you use any tactics other than bravado and guilt?

[ElectroPrincess]

222. Can you use any tactics other than bravado and guilt?

[Benbow]

164. If you went to Jerusalem and stood in the streets of the Old City

you might understand - if not condone - why some non-Israelis perceive Jerusalem as being raped. There are Israeli soldiers everywhere. There is huge fear about Ariel Sharon's plans for the Temple Mount: cf visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, 28 September 2000, in part an assertion of Israeli sovereignty over the area, caused outrage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1778047.stm

The Temple Mount is sacred to both Islam and Judaism. I have stood at Dome of the Rock and within the al-Aqsa Mosque.

To Muslims, it is where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven and is home to the al-Aqsa mosque.

To Jews, it is where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son and where Judaism's first and second temples once stood.

And, it has to be said, Israel matches Palestinian terrorism with State terrorism. The Palestinians blow themselves up; and Israel retaliates with tanks and helicopter gunships and flattening houses with people still inside them. Palestinians have no helicopters or tanks.

And then there is the Wall - cutting Palestinians off from their fields, their places of work, their schools.

In London, you will have noted, our response to the bombs of 7 July has not been to demolish the houses of their families.

[geek tragedy]

176. The issue isn't that the Israelis are too brutal in their occupation--no

argument there.

The problem is Galloway's poisonous rhetoric. It crosses the line--it encourages violence.

"Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it."

I know what I'd want to do to someone who's raping my daughters.

And the depiction of Israelis as foreigners in their own land has a specific purpose--to delegitimize the very existence of Israel.

There's no doubt in my mind that Galloway would love to see a Pan-Arab army launch WWIII against Israel and wipe it off the face of the Earth. None whatsoever.

[ElectroPrincess]

223. Oh, I forgot, besides, bravado and guilt, why use hyperbole and

every slight against the SECULAR state of Israel is interpreted as anti-Semitic? That lame argument is getting really old. :(

[Colorado Blue]

192. Other posters, some British, have said the same thing, that progressives

in Britain have no particular respect for Galloway. After all he carpet bagged his way into Bethnal Green, which had been well served by its MP. The job of a local representative is to help the people of his/her region in their daily lives, whereas Galloway has seized the bully pulpit, and moreover in such a way as to inflame prejudice.

[GoBlue]

25. Depends on your definition of 'the enemy' /nt

[Dirk39]

27. He hasn't gone too far...

Hello from Germany,
he's realistic and he's asking the right questions. The Vietnam war didn't end, because Americans started to question US-imperialism and genocide, the Vietnam war ended because of the strenght of the anticolonial resistence IN Vietnam. I don't see any chance now that the US-empire will be toppled from within the USA. Even most so-called liberals and leftists support a more moderate kind of economic and militaristic genocide and don't have the courage to support and defend the victims, who fight back. The civil society in the U.S. doesn't exist any longer. It might be the first empire that relies solely on "Circus" without bread.
No U.S. soldier would risk his life if he resists going to Iraq. The peace movement in the U.S. could at least try to do everything to break the loyalty of the U.S. soldiers and support those of them, who escape the army.
Dirk

[youspeakmylanguage]

30. sigh...

Even most so-called liberals and leftists support a more moderate kind of economic and militaristic genocide and don't have the courage to support and defend the victims, who fight back.

Regardless of our misguided president, I believe a majority of our troops are trying to rebuild a stable and safe Iraq. They aren't risking their lives to pillage or kill people. Many of us "so-called" liberals would like to see Iraq free from a Taliban-like Wahabi government as well as free from our occupation. We support peace and stability, not terrorism and religious extremism.

We support the victims. We don't support those that plant bombs that kill indiscriminately and kidnap civilians and behead them. But hey, we're just "so-called" liberals, right?

The peace movement in the U.S. could at least try to do everything to break the loyalty of the U.S. soldiers and support those of them, who escape the army.

That's called treason. Maybe you've heard of it?

Of course, we should all look to Germany as a model of peace and stability and bow our heads any time a German would care to impart wisdom. It's not like your country started two world wars or killed millions of innocent people or anything like that. :eyes:

[K-W]

37. Im not so sure the army is a force of benevolance...

but it is still an illegal occupation and the Iraqi's who arent targetting civillians are still resisting legally.

And it is only treason to act against the war effort if one belives the war effort is just.

[youspeakmylanguage]

42. I don't support the occupation...

...but I also don't support those who would kill our troops and innocent civilians. I certainly don't support walking away and turning the country over to Wahabi radicals, terrorists, or letting it slip into anarchy. I support the best possible resolution to this conflict, ensuring that we leave as quickly as possible yet also leave the country in the best shape we possibly can. What exactly helps you sleep better at night? Believing that the Iraqi people would be better off if we simply picked up and left our mess for them to clean up on their own?

It depends on what you mean by "acting against" the war effort. Speaking out against the war is patriotic, just, protected speech. Advocating that American soldiers defect and or sabotage our military from within is treason.

EDIT: Why did you just gut your own post instead of responding to this one in return? And as far as international law is concerned, this isn't technically an illegal occupation.

[K-W]

54. Yes you do.

You support occupying the country illegally until you conclude that it is ready to be freed. That is supporting the occupation.

"turning the country over to Wahabi radicals, terrorists, or letting it slip into anarchy."

First off, the idea that it would go over to Wahabi radicals shows you have no clue what is going on in Iraq, that isnt at all a possibility.

Our nation is in the hands of terrorists so how exactly does that work?

Slip into anarchy? I assume you mean chaos, but the idea that the way to stabilize a country is military occupation is laughable.

It depends on what you mean by "acting against" the war effort. Speaking out against the war is patriotic, just, protected speech. Advocating that American soldiers defect and or sabotage our military from within is treason.

Sabotage? Who said anything about sabotage?

Advocating that American soldiers defect is patriotic.

This is an illegal war, there is nothing treasonous about trying to stop it.

Why did you just gut your own statement instead of responding to this post?

Lol, I edited before you posted. I read it after I wrote it, didnt like it, and immediately edited it, but obviously not fast enough.

And as far as international law is concerned, this isn't technically an illegal occupation.

Actually yes it is, and obviously so.

[youspeakmylanguage]

58. I would ask you to supply some facts to justify these statements...

First off, the idea that it would go over to Wahabi radicals shows you have no clue what is going on in Iraq, that isn't at all a possibility.

Actually yes it is, and obviously so.

But after reading...

Our nation is in the hands of terrorists so how exactly does that work?

...I realized I'm dealing someone who has no interest in having a rational conversation.

Our nation is in the hands of corporatists and fundamentalist christians, not terrorists. Our soldiers do not kill or torture innocent people indiscriminately. We do not cut the heads off our prisoners and broadcast these executions on satellite television. And we certainly don't call for the complete elimination of nations (Israel).

[K-W]

92. We have committed acts of terrorism in Iraq,

bombing public works for instance. Regardless we should get off the crime of terrorism because it isnt even the worst crime taking place. The worst crime in international law isnt terrorism, it is aggression. So yes, Bush is a terrorist, and in fact much of his staff including the VP and were in previous administrations presiding over terrorism around the world, and on top of that they waged an illegal war, the worst of all international crimes.

I would ask you to supply some facts to justify these statements..."

Sure, but this is all pretty common knowledge.

"First off, the idea that it would go over to Wahabi radicals shows you have no clue what is going on in Iraq, that isn't at all a possibility."

Well, every single fact about Iraq proves this one. It is absurd to think that under any circumstance outside of a complete demolition of Iraqi society, Wahabi radicals could sieze control of Iraq.

"Actually yes it is, and obviously so."

Again, im not sure what you want me to tell you. How on earth could the occupation following an illegal invasion be legal?

[youspeakmylanguage]

101. You still have not demonstrated...

...your basic assertion - that the invasion and occupation were illegal. According to the UN they were NOT illegal. They were sanctioned by both the US government (with extensive Democratic support, I might add) and by the UN. What international governing body has stated the invasion and occupation were illegal?

I didn't support the invasion and I want the occupation to end as quickly as possible AFTER cleaning up as much of our mess as we possibly can. But making a broad statement about everything we've done being "illegal" without the facts to back it up is absurd.

Well, every single fact about Iraq proves this one. It is absurd to think that under any circumstance outside of a complete demolition of Iraqi society, Wahabi radicals could sieze control of Iraq.

What are those facts? And how hard was it for the radicals to take control of Iran? or Afghanistan? How close are they to taking over the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

[K-W]

158. Sorry, I dont usually demonstrate the blatently obvious.

...your basic assertion - that the invasion and occupation were illegal. According to the UN they were NOT illegal.

That is just plain false. The UN has declared no such thing. In fact Kofi Annan has said in no uncertain terms that the invasion is a violation of the UN charter, which it obviously is.

They were sanctioned by both the US government (with extensive Democratic support, I might add)

I dont know where you learned international law, but nations arent allowed to sanction thier own wars of aggression and make them legal.

and by the UN.
The UN did not sanction this war. That is false.

What international governing body has stated the invasion and occupation were illegal?

None have, but that doesnt prove it was legal.

I didn't support the invasion and I want the occupation to end as quickly as possible AFTER cleaning up as much of our mess as we possibly can. But making a broad statement about everything we've done being "illegal" without the facts to back it up is absurd.

The facts to back it up are common knowledge. The US initiated an agressive war with Iraq that was not defensive nor did it have security council approval. It was illegal and obviously so and the occupation that followed is of course illegal as well.

What are those facts? And how hard was it for the radicals to take control of Iran? or Afghanistan? How close are they to taking over the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

Iran is controlled by Shiite clerics not Wahabbi Clerics. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two nations with radical populations that contains and support Wahabbists.

Not all Muslim countries are the same. In Iraq the power struggle is between Sunni communities, Kurdish communities and Shiite communities. There is no way that the foriegn fighters from Saudi Arabia could possibly take control of the nation.

[Dirk39]

62. kill innocent civilians?

During BushI, Clinton and BushII more than a million innocent Iraqis were killed. Mrs. Albright once said, the killing of more than 500.000 Iraqi children would be legitimated: "We have to pay that price" - She really said "WE"!
I don't even want to mention that between 20 and 30 million Iraqis will get cancer from the Weapons of Mass Destruction the U.S. has used in Iraq: depleted Uranium.

The Iraqis, who were 15 when the sanction were working brutally - supported by most european governments - are 25 now. You would hardly find any Iraqi, who doesn't had a friend or relative killed by U.S.-Imperialism.
They will never ever accept the ongoing occupation of Iraq and the completely sell-out of their country to U.S. corparations.

BTW the USA has accepted the Nuremberg Laws: an unjustified offensive war against a souvereign country is the most serious crime against humanity according to the Nuremberg Laws. The US soldiers, who fight in Iraq, are personal responsible, they cannot excuse their crimes: according to Nuremberg it is their obligation to reject to follow orders.

Dirk

[youspeakmylanguage]

79. Wow...

...do you have some evidence to back up those numbers? And are you referring to the UN embargo placed on Iraq during the Clinton years? An embargo that, evidence suggests, was used by people within the UN, Europe and America to profit from Iraqi oil and line the pockets of Saddam's Baathist regime?

Blood is on all of our hands, brother. But go on believing the USA is the source of all the world's ills. If that helps you deal with your own national and european issues, then so be it. Just don't expect to lecture us with impunity.

[Taxloss]

82. Link:

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

[youspeakmylanguage]

88. Right. I see that the UN was responsible for the sanctions...

...and not just the US.

[Taxloss]

102. Sorry,

I didnt mean to imply it was the US alone, of course it was the UN. I just wanted to link to the number killed by sanctions.

[youspeakmylanguage]

105. I agree - the sanctions were horribly mismanaged...

...by both Saddam and the UN. But claiming that the US was alone responsible for them is absurd, which was what "Dirk" was implying.

[Frederik]

149. "The UN"

is not an independent actor in security matters. The sanctions on Iraq would not have continued for so long were it not for the insistence of the US and the UK. Of course there are other culpable parties as well.

[Dirk39]

187. some more evidence:

"Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said that as many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, cases of lymphoblastic leukemia more than quadrupled with other cancers also increasing 'at an alarming rate'. In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, skin, and stomach cancers showed the highest increase. In women, the highest increases were in breast and bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.1
On hearing that DU had been used in the Gulf in 1991, the UK Atomic Energy Authority sent the Ministry of Defense a special report on the potential damage to health and the environment. It said that it could cause half a million additional cancer deaths in Iraq over 10 years. In that war the authorities only admitted to using 320 tons of DU-although the Dutch charity LAKA estimates the true figure is closer to 800 tons. Many times that may have been spread across Iraq by this year's war. The devastating damage all this DU will do to the health and fertility of the people of Iraq now, and for generations to come, is beyond imagining.
The radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years killing millions of every age for centuries to come. This is a crime against humanity which may rank with the worst atrocities of all time."
http://www.coastalpost.com/05/04/09.htm

You might check what Depleted Uranium has done to U.S. soliders by yourself. I hardly doubt that the Iraqi freedom-fighters will ever kill as many U.S. soldiers as Bush and the Pentagon

"Of the 696,778 troops who served during the recognized conflict phase (1990-1991) of the Gulf War, at least 20,6861 have applied for VA medical benefits. As of May 2002, 159,238 veterans have been awarded service-connected disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs for health effects collectively known as the Gulf War Syndrome.

There have been many studies on Gulf War Syndrome over the years, as well as on possible long-term health hazards of DU munitions. Most have been inconclusive. But some researchers said the previous studies on DU, conducted by groups and agencies ranging from the World Health Organization to the Rand Corp. to the investigative arm of Congress, weren't looking in the right place -- at the effects of inhaled DU.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, director of the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, and center research associates Patricia Horan and Leonard Dietz, published a unique study in the August issue of Military Medicine medical journal.

The study is believed to be the first to look at inhaled DU among Gulf War veterans, using the ultrasensitive technique of thermal ionization mass spectrometry, which enabled them to easily distinguish between natural uranium and DU.

The study, which examined British, Canadian and U.S. veterans, all suffering typical Gulf War Syndrome ailments, found that, nine years after the war, 14 of 27 veterans studied had DU in their urine. DU also was found in the lung and bone of a deceased Gulf War veteran."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

[Frederik]

98. "those who would kill our troops and innocent civilians"

Are you implying that killing occupation troops and killing innocent civilians are morally equivalent?

"Believing that the Iraqi people would be better off if we simply picked up and left our mess for them to clean up on their own?"

What on Earth makes you think that Iraqis wouldn't be able to "clean up on their own" the mess we've made for them? What good are US troops doing in Iraq? In what ways are they helpful? They are not, in any way, as far as I can tell. Their continued presence is merely delaying the inevitable, which is an Iraq completely dominated by Iran, and faced with armed resistance from anti-Iranian Sunnis which may or may not result in a civil war. The current government is already a puppet of Iran. Ibrahim al-Jaafari was groomed by the Iranian mullahs in the 80s to take over Iraq after a future Shi'ite revolution. Voilà. This is the regime that the US troops are protecting now, and their presence is the only thing which prevents overt Iranian control of Iraq. Once they leave, it will happen. It can happen this year, or ten years from now, at the cost of bankrupting the United States financially and morally.

Iraq has more PhDs per capita than the US have. They don't need Halliburton to rebuild their country (which is still a hypothetical possibility, as pretty much nothing has been rebuilt as of yet), and least of all American contractors to steal their jobs from them.

This "white man's burden" line of thinking is deeply flawed, in my opinion.

[youspeakmylanguage]

110. WTF?

Are you implying that killing American troops is not morally reprehensible?

If that's the case, then we're done corresponding.

[wtmusic]

122. WTF?

Are you implying that Iraqis defending their homeland IS morallly reprehensible?

Then I too, announce with self-righteous indignation that we're done corresponding. :eyes:

[Frederik]

156. It has been one of the core principles

of international law since at least the days of Grotius, in the 17th century, that the inhabitants of any sovereign state have the right to armed and violent resistance against a foreign invader. I could petend that this principle does not apply to Iraqis, or Vietnamese, or Granadians, or Panamanians, or Afghanis, but that would require me to adopt a very dubious double standard.

I don't like double standards. Either you must argue against the principle of legitimate armed resistance against a foreign invader, or you must admit the Iraqis that right like you would any other people, against any other invader than the United States. (And please don't argue that the US is a "different" kind of invader).

[geek tragedy]

190. The Iraqis are within their rights to shoot at US and UK troops.

However, a British MP has absolutely no business taking their side. He is on the same team as those British soldiers, and aiding their enemies is a betrayal and treason.

For people like Galloway, there is a choice. Resign from Parliament, pick up a gun, and fight the imperialists you encourage others to kill.

[Frederik]

197. I tend to agree on that

As an elected member of Parliament, he should certainly be at liberty to criticize the prime minister and his cabinet as well as the UK military, but he should refrain from publically encouraging the enemy to fight his country's troops. I think it's his right to do so, but it shows poor judgement.

[geek tragedy]

117. When a member of government provides support to those killing soldiers

who serve that government, that is indeed a dubious position to take.

Galloway ought to pick up a gun, if he really believes this stuff. Champagne socialist that he is, of course he won't.

[wtmusic]

127. I don't see you running off to the front lines either Geek

to help your soldiers...

What makes you think British soldiers are "serving" England by aiding in the invasion of Iraq?

[Colorado Blue]

194. Amen. nt

[Karmakaze]

220. Thank you for once again showing why so many people hate America...

The fact is, US soldiers are killing Iraqis cause they were told to, and in most cases they enjoy it. You may like to think they are there for this great quest to bring democracy to Iraq, but it is not true.

I sure never saw any messages scrawled on 1000lb bombs saying "Demand the right to vote" or "All men are created equal".

No, they mostly stuck to the theme that Iraqi's are going to pay for what Saudis did.

So noble.

Then you refer to Germany's role in the two world wars in a personal attack on Dirk39 - of course totally neglecting that that merely proves Dirk39's point - Could Hitler have started WWII if soldiers had deserted his armies?

Thanks for yet again demonstrating why many people hate America and Americans.

[geek tragedy]

224. On what data do you base your hateful smear of US soldiers?

Never mind. I don't have time for debates with folks like that.

Toodles.

[geek tragedy]

34. Hello from America.

You are profoundly ignorant about this country.

[Dhalgren]

89. Dirk, thank you for that much needed shot of truth! Even

Americans here on DU seem unable to grasp the concept that we are doing a great evil in the world and we must be stopped! We can't just say, "Tsk, tsk, isn't that Bush a terrible person", then rush home to catch "American Idol" or "The O.C."! We cannot keep saying that the only problem with US is Bush - it isn't, it is us! We are allowing Bush and his, essentially, private Army to kill any one on the planet whom he wishes to! And we actually say things like' "You can't blame the soldiers; you can't blame the Democrats; you can't blame me", when in reality we all must bare the guilt of what we are allowing to be done in our name! If we are powerless to stop it, then we are powerless to stop it, but we must stop making excuses for any one of us who goes along with the fascists who are now in power. If you are a fellow traveler, and support Our Great Leader's conquest of the world, then have the balls to admit it! Sorry for the ranting...couldn't help it...

[K-W]

28. This is spin people, please analyze before you react.

First off, this article is covering the controversy, so it is reporting on allegations made by Galloway's political opponants.

This is something of a hit piece. It cobbles together quotes from various Galloway speeches and interviews to focus in and distort his position by framing it together.

The main charge in the article is the martyr claim, which is an outright lie, he called them "thier martyrs" which at the very worst means he is academically identifying them as martyrs and probably just means the people the insurgents themselves consider to be martyrs. He never indicated the he himself saw them as martyrs.

From a pure pacifist perspective, Galloway may be giving violence a little too much blush, but from a mainstream perspective this is nothing. Similar and MUCH worse language is used to describe the occupying forces, and the occupying forces are on a considerably lower ethical level than the resistance.

And anyone who isnt a pacifist that critisizes him should ask themselves what they would be doing right now if they were Iraqi.

[bemildred]

32. Yeh. Smells of bullshit.

George is certainly outspoken enough, but he is a careful man with words, also.

[geek tragedy]

51. Not when he's on Baathist soil pandering to his favorite political party

he isn't.

Do you think he had any comments about Syria's human rights record while visiting?

[bemildred]

70. Was there some part of "Smells of bullshit" you missed? nt

[geek tragedy]

80. There's video of him saying every word.

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=72765&ak=null

George McHawHaw indeed.

[bemildred]

84. Yes, I've seen it. Not with sound yet though. nt

[progressivebydesign]

64. I noticed it was rather indirect in the quoting... n/t

[geek tragedy]

96. I wouldn't be murdering trade unionists and election workers if I were

an Iraqi.

But George Galloway supports that kind of 'resistance.'

The only Iraqis he cares about are the ones trying to kill Brits and Americans.

[geek tragedy]

31. Galloway isn't anti-violence--he's just rooting for anyone trying to kill

British or American soldiers.

He also labeled Iraqi trade-unionists as quislings because they were organizing politically instead of killing Americans.

Of course, while Saddam was persecuting these same trade unionists, Baathist George was sipping tea with his dear, dear friend, Tariq Aziz.

George Galloway is my enemy.

[Taxloss]

45. Hear hear.

[Canadian_moderate]

36. Galloway is a publicity seeking ass

There is no excuse for terrorism whatsoever, period. Nothing can justify the killing of innocent civilians, regardless of the circumstances.

Yes, he has gone much too far.

[K-W]

39. You should read things before reacting to them.

He didnt excuse or justify terrorism.

[geek tragedy]

50. He's justified terrorism against Iraqi trade unionists--he calls them

quislings, collaborators, and traitors.

These are people who were tortured, imprisoned, and murdered by his associates in the Baath party.

It is a goddamn joke that people who call themselves leftists would support a man who praises those who murder trade unionists and election workers.

[Canadian_moderate]

90. He's calling insurgents "martyrs"

I read things perfectly clear.

These same "martyrs" are also killing innocent Iraqi civilians, and for this I simply refer to them as "terrorists".

Military targets, whether Iraqi or American, are one thing, but civilian targets are simply despicable.

Hey, I never supported the War in Iraq either, but let's stop making excuses for terrorists and call them what they are. The earlier the insurgency stops, the earlier the American troops leave and hand over full sovereignty to Iraq. The insurgency is not helping the Iraqi people.

BTW - would would you subsrcibe to GWB's notion that "we are either with us or against us", as he stated it. This is much more complex. GWB's enemy is not my friend.

[ElectroPrincess]

129. So does that go for state sponsored terrorism too? n/t

[Canadian_moderate]

199. Of course

When armies intentionally target civilians, they are equally guilty of terrorism.

[K-W]

168. Maybe you should read more than one word now.

He's calling insurgents "martyrs"
No he is calling them "thier martyrs" saying they are martyrs to the insurgents, not to him.

Military targets, whether Iraqi or American, are one thing, but civilian targets are simply despicable.
Galloway agrees with you 100% on that.

Hey, I never supported the War in Iraq either, but let's stop making excuses for terrorists and call them what they are.

Nobody made any excuses for terrorists nor misidentified them.

The earlier the insurgency stops, the earlier the American troops leave and hand over full sovereignty to Iraq. The insurgency is not helping the Iraqi people.

Yes, one way the violence could stop is complete US victory, why you think the US would hand over full soverieignty in that case baffles me. The simple fact that US declares the right to invade Iraq and change its regime is a violation of its soveriegnty.

BTW - would would you subsrcibe to GWB's notion that "we are either with us or against us", as he stated it. This is much more complex. GWB's enemy is not my friend.

Of course not. Nobody is saying terrorists are our friends, you are inventing that doozy in your head. Galloway is accurately describing the insurgency (not the terrorist actions that are a part of it) as a battle against an occupying force, which it is. He is no more excusing terrorism than anyone in the US who talks about US soldiers withought condemning them is excusing the crimes committed by the US.

[Canadian_moderate]

205. Who are the insurgents really fighting for?

"Yes, one way the violence could stop is complete US victory, why you think the US would hand over full soverieignty in that case baffles me. The simple fact that US declares the right to invade Iraq and change its regime is a violation of its soveriegnty."

There is no way that the USA would be able to maintain control without a military presence. Even the current Iraqi government would liek to eventually see the Americans leave. The insurgency is targeting the infrastructure of Iraq, which is directly affecting the Iraqi civilians. While most of the Iraqis are not happy about the presence of the American military, they hardly support the Ba'athist Sunni insurgents either, whose only goals to to maintain instability in Iraq. The insurgents are not fighting on behalf of the majority of the people of Iraq. The are fighting for the minority group who held the power prior to the defeat of Saddam's Ba'athist government.

[geek tragedy]

52. I'll bet money that he didn't raise the issue of democracy and human

rights under Syria's Baathist dictatorship.

[Lithos]

65. Galloway is a fool

He seems to forget that the ends do not justify the means. He is also a hypocrite; he is giving praise to one set for doing exactly what he is damning the other for.

Iraq needs help, it does need to be free from the new colonialization. It does NOT need the "martyrs" he is praising just like it does not need the US domination.

Once again, average people are shat upon.

L-

[youspeakmylanguage]

67. BRAVO!

Thanks for adding a little perspective to this. Supporting the radicals on either side simply leads to more heartache and bloodshed for the innocents caught in the middle.

[ElectroPrincess]

83. I will agree that Galloway should be focusing on getting the troops

OUT NOW! All else is a moot point. If you want to keep up this un-holy war send YOUR children, not mine.

Wake up people. No need to mince words, we are THE INVADERS ... we are THE OCCUPIERS. The US and Coalition forces have no moral or legal right to stay in Iraq.

Galloway may come across as distasteful, but in many nationalistic Iraqi eyes, these suicide bombers are "freedom fighters."

The truth will set you free. Not what you want to be YOUR TRUTH.

[Taxloss]

87. Why this keenness for Galloway's brand of extremism?

Yes, we are the invaders and occupiers. Of Iraq. Not Israel. He is advocating the destruction of Israel.

[geek tragedy]

94. And he advocates the murder of trade unionists and elections workers

and anyone else who isn't helping to kill Brits and Americans and Jews, er, Israelis.

[ElectroPrincess]

118. "He is advocating the destruction of Israel."

Bullshit! However, if Israel (a separate country apart from the USA albeit we seem to be their handmaiden) wants to "stay put" that's cool but the USA has NO, I repeat NO interest in the Middle East save for *the oil* we can steal.

We need to get a true understand as to how we can go about weaning ourselves off of Oil, NOT to continue to invade and occupy oil rich countries.

We ARE the Invaders and Occupiers. This is NOT how I want the country that I love to behave, i.e., like a power drunk Empire.

[geek tragedy]

128. He thinks Jerusalem is being 'raped' by foreigners.

Who do you think he means?

It's hate speech. It's classic rhetoric for those who view Israel as an alien, foreign, parasitic presence that ought to be destroyed.

Galloway, Assad, Saddam--they all belong on one side of the fence. And I won't associate with anyone who stands with them.

[ElectroPrincess]

139. We don't live the the United States of Israel ...

Remember that? Israel is a *separate* country that has, especially in the early days, performed many terrorist actions. So when Israel kills innocent Palestinians, it's A OK because they technically didn't mean to because they have a big ass army with big ass munitions.

So state sponsored terrorism is an "oops! sorry" where suicide bombers and the resistance is "despicable."

No, Israel is not on the higher ground.

Israel is separate from the USA and they should be "on their own." We have done enough to tip the scales and tacitly support their state sponsored terrorism.

The American People should speak up and demand, "No more! USA and UK out of the Middle East NOW!"

[geek tragedy]

142. His language sounds like something written by Hamas or bin Laden

or Saddam.

You know, btw, that he wants us to give Afghanistan back to the Taliban, right?

[Dhalgren]

124. When an insurgency is fighting for the life of its nation

against an overwhelmingly powerful imperial force, that insurgency probably does need martyrs; and they will be honored by anyone who is against this kind of bloody imperialism. If even "liberals" and "progressives" cannot find the conscience or the courage to tell the truth about what this country is doing, and who is doing it, then the fascists have won, irrevocably. If the opposition in this country is not opposed to the occupation of Iraq, then all hope is gone. Heil Bush! America Over All!


We are the dead....

[Lithos]

157. You forget a bit

That war, no matter how justified, NEVER is justified enough to kill civilians. The US is doing it, the "martyrs" are doing it. It is not only criminal, but cowardly to target civilians. He is a hypocrite to say it is wrong for one side but not the other. Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

You can not say one side is bad and the other side "just" here. Both are wrong, dead wrong. Truth is truth, it is color blind and is universal.

If they wish to be "martyrs" then they should "martyr" themselves against our troops. Yes, I would hate to be the parent of a soldier to die for what I see as the wrong situation Bush and company got us into, but at least our soldiers can defend themselves and know they are on the front lines. Civilians do not have this luxury.

If you allow the targeting of civilians to continue, you are right, the "fascists" have won here in the US/UK and in Iraq.

The real solution is for the US to turn this into a real multi-national effort (the hated UN again), get rid of these special contracts which are doing nothing but obstruct the delivery and bleed away the funds from the Iraqis and start working to fix the infrastructure which is feeding these terrorists.

No I'm not talking about Iraq for this last one, but rather the financial infrastructure and money laundering which is going on in the Middle Eastern banking centers. Terrorists feed off of the money much like cancer off of blood. Cut this off and they loose much of their power.

Course this will only reveal to the world the crooked flow of money in the ME. Makes you wonder why people like Phil Gramm who lead the charge several years ago to stop laws which would have likely prevented the funding of the 9/11 terrorists, and others like Tom Delay are so against the necessary banking reforms.

L-

[bemildred]

71. Galloway 'puts troops at risk'

Two comments:
We seem to have a fairly organized campaign against Galloway going on.

It was not George that sent the troops to Iraq, so, if George is putting troops "at risk", what is one to say of Mr. Blair and his lickspittle stooges?

RESPECT MP George Galloway was today accused of putting the lives of British troops in Iraq at risk after he went on TV to describe insurgents in the country as "martyrs".

In a series of broadcasts in the Middle East last week, Mr Galloway attacked Tony Blair and George Bush as "terrorists".

And he accused the US president of killing more people in Iraq than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man blamed for a series of bombings and murders, including the beheading of Briton Ken Bigley.

Speaking on Syrian TV, Mr Galloway said: "The Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs, and they are defending all the people of the world from American hegemony."

News.Scotsman.Com

[geek tragedy]

72. Well, when you pander to the dictator of Syria, you should expect

some backlash.

Then again, his pandering to Baathists in the past doesn't bother his fans on the reactionary left . . .

[bemildred]

74. Correct, no surprise in this. nt

[wtmusic]

75. Galloway doesn't give a crap about backlash

he revels in it.

[wtmusic]

73. The reason the war is failing is because it's not supported

Or so the story goes.

[bemildred]

76. The war is failing because it was a really stupid idea to start with.

But that would be a politically in-expedient thing to say in public.

[earthboundmisfit]

77. "Hegemony" - I do like that term & it is quite accurate. see this:

Hegemony
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group.

Throughout history, cultural and political power in any arena has rarely achieved a perfect balance, but hegemony results in the empowerment of certain cultural beliefs, values, and practices to the submersion and partial exclusion of others. Hegemony affects the perspective of mainstream history, as history is written by the victors for a sympathetic readership. The official history of Christianity, marginalizing its defined "heresies", provides a richly-exampled arena of cultural hegemony...

more at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

[bemildred]

78. Exactly the right word, in this case.

The Chinese were fond of it back in the old days.

[enigma000]

120. No wonder al-Zawahri can't be caught

His secret identity is the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow . . .

[ElectroPrincess]

152. Yeah sure, and they enjoy tea time together each afternoon ...

Whoa! You people are freaking me out, man! Perhaps I should practice my Nazi salute and iron my brown shirts? Clearly the act of speaking against "the ILLEGAL and IMMORAL occupation" of Iraq is downright treason to both the Yankees and the Brits. :puke:

What the GOOKS and COMMIES were during the Vietnam War, these "flavor of the month defined" (first Osama, then Al Zarkowi, or whomever they deem a boogieman) generic TERRORISTS are now to the ongoing series of Bush Invasions and Occupations.

On edit: Since when did we (USA) declare war against Syria? So, the fact that he was aired on Syrian TV does not make him consorting with the enemy? Or is it that our present coven of hawks believe the USA to be at war with the entire Arab world?

[anotherdrew]

135. FYI - every quote in the bbc story is 'out of context'

would prefer to read the speeches themselves.

but at first glance these comments do seem AT LEAST unnecessary, unhelpful and il-considered.

[StrafingMoose]

151. The only beef I have about this is...

he might be cheering foreign assets that actually work in the interest of the coalition (create chaos, knock their power station down so the 'good Iraqis' turn against to the 'good resistance' not understanding the trick that's being played on them). While, there is an homegrown resistance, there is also a foreign one that suicide-bombs and kills much more civilians than coalition soldiers. Thus, he would be making himself look like an ass to the coalition and the Arab world.


But kudos for at least trying to legitimize a part of the resistance!

[ElectroPrincess]

160. No, it's a very calculated resistance - similar to VIETNAM

They target people who are supporting the OCCUPIERS (police recruits, workers within the green zone, political officials).

Yes, this is an inhumane but *very effective* tactic because fewer and fewer so called "good Iraqis" will continue to sign up to assist the Occupiers.

Again, do we consider the average Iraqi so damn stupid to not be able to sort out their country BY THEMSELVES. They have NOT EVER allowed an Empire to succeed. The Brits KNOW that fact up close and personal within their history books.

Galloway's spot on. How many ways can you say an illegal and immoral occupation of a sovereign country?

This is why the fascists will win: Few people have the courage to EVEN tacitly support those who are willing to put themselves on the line to *end* this nightmare.

We are all gutless wonders picking at the bones of people who would help extract our troops from that HELL HOLE of death and destruction.

[geek tragedy]

163. Those people are cheerleading the people who kill our soldiers, election

workers, and trade unionists?

With whom are you more sympathetic: murdererd trade unionists and election workers, or the people who murdered them?

[enigma000]

173. Galloway's on a recruitment drive

Speaking out against the Iraq war and occupation? Sure, nothing wrong with that. Going to a Baathist dictatorship and doing a TV recruitment ad for foreign Jihadists, well, that’s crossing a line for a public official don’t you think?

Oh, and with the Nazi brownshirt analogy, what would happen if a British MP circa 1940 visited Franco’s Spain (which was neutral) and encouraged young Spaniards to join the Axis war effort? My guess is he would spend the remainder of the war in the Tower of London . . .

[geek tragedy]

181. I think the name Lord McHawHaw fits. eom

[enigma000]

193. Well said

Well said GT, well said....

HawHaw was hanged was he? A worse fate befell HawHaw than Oswald Mosley.

I wonder if Galloway will apologise......

[geek tragedy]

195. I believe he was shot. I don't think Galloway should be prosecuted, but

his constituents should have full disclosure about him and the horrid Frankenstein's monster known as RESPECT.

[Taxloss]

198. Frankenstein's Monster? It's the Phantom of the SWOPera.

Hiding behind a mask, the Socialist Workers Party advances its aims in Respect, with GG as a convenient publicity-hungry figurehead.

[geek tragedy]

200. Not only the trots of the SWP, but also the Muslim Brotherhood.

Authoritarian communists and authoritarian theocrats--the ideal progressive party.

:sarcasm:

[Taxloss]

203. They've got my vote! What Britain needs right now is communalist politics.

:puke:

[geek tragedy]

206. Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood has figured out that theocracy

isn't part of the Trots' agenda?

Or do you think the Trots' and Galloway have sold out what few principles they had?


Hmmmmmmm.

[Taxloss]

216. Well, the SWOPers are plainly working flat out to exploit Iraq

to their own advantage, as they do with all issues like this, and if it looks like things aren't working, the only solution is for the chief mouthpiece to ratchet up the rhetoric a notch. Of course the Trots don't give a toss about theocracy, they want a SWOPocracy.

Frankly, I'm all in favour of giving GG more opportunities to spout off in front of the public, because it will hasen the day he is driven out of public life.

[enigma000]

219. Trotskyism and Islamic theocracy

Hmm... Trotskyism and Islamic theocracy all rolled into one. I’m overjoyed – where can I sign up?

This would be like making a combined sequal to two crappy
Hollywood movies: say the Halle Berry flick Catwoman and J. Lo’s Gigli.

Think of it: an action, drama about a lesbian mobster superhero. With LOTS of screentime for Ben (what happened to my career?) Affleck

I want my refund NOW.

[enigma000]

201. Off with his head

Just kidding......

You are correct, his constituents should know the values of this RESPECT party.

Actively recruiting for the other side does not befit an elected public official; especially when the "resistance" is assassinating elected Iraqi MPs.

[geek tragedy]

204. He was a supporter of Hamas--he referred to Yassin and Rantissi

as martyrs.

It is a lie to say that Galloway doesn't support terrorism.

RESPECT is a shit party composed of the lowest scum. It's on a par with the BNP.

[StrafingMoose]

172. You're right...

"They target people who are supporting the OCCUPIERS (police recruits, workers within the green zone, political officials)."

They are actually targetting political officials and police officers, but when I see a kamikaze blowing up children, civilian infrastructures, my BS meter hits the roof and I call it CIA/Mossad/Saudi intel agency black ops. This in no way supports ANY opposition to the coalition, it would in fact support the legitimacy of the coalition's invasion. "See, we pulled out if this village and you guys can't keep it quiet, we've GOT to send our tanks back!"


Interesting article from the WP yesterday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201579.html


Before the war in Iraq began, the CIA recruited and trained an Iraqi paramilitary group, code-named the Scorpions, to foment rebellion, conduct sabotage, and help CIA paramilitaries who entered Baghdad and other cities target buildings and individuals, according to three current and former intelligence officials with knowledge of the unit.

After Baghdad fell, the CIA used the Scorpions to try to infiltrate the insurgency, to help out in interrogations, and, from time to time, to do "the dirty work," as one intelligence official put it.

[Frederik]

210. Thanks

That is indeed an interesting article, which I had missed.

"The CIA spent millions of dollars on the Scorpions, whose existence has not been previously disclosed, even giving them former Soviet Hind helicopters."

Hinds no less...

[Caleb]

191. I don't get his comments about Israel and Jerusalem

They seem pretty anti-Semitic if you ask me, but maybe I'm just reading them wrong.

[ElectroPrincess]

207. Yeah, you're reading them wrong ...

Or trying to pull, yet another, of the millions of "guilt trip" default "Israel is always right because we feel bad for WWII" on us?

No, Israel is a SEPARATE country and on their own. And as far as our fellow (chicken?) hawks who self righteously proclaim that it's just them mean ole' extremist "brown people" who target innocent civilians, think again, and consider removing that HALO?

Such proclamations at the USA's purity is both DELUSIONAL and DISGUSTING enough when it comes from right wingers. You claim "OUR Soldiers" are being killed by terrorists? WTF kind of erroneous chicken-hawk statement is that? Is your Son or Daughter serving over there? Otherwise it has nothing to do with any sacrifice, by you (or yours) in particular? Your self righteousness bears no moral weight.

[ElectroPrincess]

208. Yeah, you're reading them wrong ...

Or trying to pull, yet another, of the millions of "guilt trip" default "Israel is always right because we feel bad for WWII" on us?

No, Israel is a SEPARATE country and on their own. And as far as our fellow (chicken?) hawks who self righteously proclaim that it's just them mean ole' extremist "brown people" who target innocent civilians, think again, and consider removing that HALO?

Such proclamations at the USA's purity is both DELUSIONAL and DISGUSTING enough when it comes from right wingers. You claim "OUR Soldiers" are being killed by terrorists? WTF kind of erroneous chicken-hawk statement is that? Is your Son or Daughter serving over there? Otherwise it has nothing to do with any sacrifice, by you (or yours) in particular? Your self righteousness bears no moral weight.

[Caleb]

212. WTF are you ranting about?

Such proclamations at the USA's purity is both DELUSIONAL and DISGUSTING enough when it comes from right wingers. You claim "OUR Soldiers" are being killed by terrorists? WTF kind of erroneous chicken-hawk statement is that? Is your Son or Daughter serving over there? Otherwise it has nothing to do with any sacrifice, by you (or yours) in particular? Your self righteousness bears no moral weight.

When did I say any of that? LOL...

[geek tragedy]

202. Galloway also called Yassin and Rantissi "martyrs"

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:3wl5Fuev3LkJ:www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php%3Fname%3DNews%26file%3Dprint%26sid%3D1669+galloway+rantissi+yassin+martyrs&hl=en

Anyone who refers to freaking HAMAS as martyrs is playing on the other side.

[Caleb]

209. What a Nazi

How could anyone vote for this man?

[geek tragedy]

211. Because there are plenty of reactionary idiots on the left.

Certainly not as many as there are on the right, but they're out there.

[ElectroPrincess]

214. Have any children of draft age ...

or are you talking in the abstract Geek?

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Caleb]

218. I'm not a Republican

And I'm sorry for the callous remark.

But, how can you defend this Galloway guy when he supports Hamas? That's why I called him a Nazi.

[jarab]

225. Locking

A flamefest.