Galloway defends 'martyrs' remark

[bemildred]

You would think, at some point, it would dawn on these guys that giving Galloway any kind of a public forum is not their best strategy. This is not the first time they've tried to tee off on him, and every time he pastes them one in the chops.

In a speech in the Middle East, Mr Galloway 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."

But he told BBC News he had not called insurgents or the Iraqi resistance martyrs.

The problem was they were killing people and he wanted to stop the bloodshed by withdrawing US and UK troops.

bbc

[leftchick]

1. you are right of course...

<snip>

I said countries occupied by UK and US troops are being raped by them," he said. "Jerusalem and Baghdad are in the hands of foreigners who are doing their will.

"The people stirring up hatred for our troops are those who put them in Iraq, not the likes of us who want to bring them home to their families.

"The people who put our troops at risk are the people who put them abroad."


and I love this gem....

<snip>

He added: "If it is a question of quantum, there is far more blood on the hands of George Bush and Tony Blair than there is on the hands of the murderers who killed those people in London."

[H5N1]

9. Yep, he is good

Cuts right to the wick

[geek tragedy]

2. He did call the the leaders of Hamas "martyrs" so I don't see why

anyone should believe him when he tries to deny that he supports terrorism.

http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=319

<snip>KATTAN: What do you make of the Road Map?

GALLOWAY: The Road Map has been washed away in blood, washed away in the blood of the martyrs Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Dr. Abdul Aziz Al Rantissi and all the other martyrs who have fallen since the invasion of Iraq.
<snip>

Who was Rantissi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abed_al-Aziz_Rantissi

Rantissi, in his own words:


Not anti-war, just the other side.

[bitchkitty]

3. Word games - I personally don't call them terrorists,

but I do call them opportunists who take advantage of the atrocities committed in the name of "US foreign policy" to stir up hatred - although Bush and Blair do a fair job of keeping the hate alive themselves.

One's man terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Why focus on the pawns - at least this guy puts a large part of the blame where it belongs - on the kings.

[SemperEadem]

4. Truly.

after all, I'm sure that those Revolutionaries who fought to free this country from England were considered to be "terrorists" and "insurgents" at one point. AFter all, our history wasn't written by the losers, was it?

[geek tragedy]

6. Comparing George Washington and Hamas? Perverse. eom

[K-W]

10. Look its the comparison police again.

How dare you compare two things that arent exactly alike!!!!

[geek tragedy]

12. Exactly alike? The comparison is obscene. Rantissi was scum, period. nt

[K-W]

15. Your seeming inability to understand the concept of a comparison

is the issue here.

There is no problem with you pointing out the ways the two things being compared are not alike contrasting is just as important as comparing, but to argue that no comparison can be made because there are aspects that are not alike shows a type of black and white thinking I have trouble comprehending.

[geek tragedy]

18. Is anyone denying that Rantissi was a murderous, theocratic terrorist?

Besides George Galloway, that is.

The point is that apologists for terrorism always pull in the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

That's morally vacuous pig crap. What kind of (wo)man would call bin Laden or Rantissi or Meir Kahane or Eric Rudolph or the head of the KKK 'freedom fighters?"

Just because some people call terrorists 'freedom fighters' doesn't mean that they can accurately be described as 'freedom fighters.'

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" is the exact kind of horseshit logic that Bush uses when he says that "some people" think that Intelligent Design is the scientific truth.

People who believe in the scientific merit of ID are just plain wrong--who cares what they think? Same goes for people who embrace terrorists like Rantissi as freedom fighters.

[K-W]

24. You continue to completely miss the point.

You are still arguing that because two things are different in some significant ways, they cannot be compared at all.

That is horseshit.

The point is that apologists for terrorism always pull in the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

So now you are arguing that anything said by someone who is wrong and racist is automatically made wrong or racist in any context said by any person?

That's morally vacuous pig crap. What kind of (wo)man would call bin Laden or Rantissi or Meir Kahane or Eric Rudolph or the head of the KKK 'freedom fighters?"

I dont really have time to go into the various groups of people who supported the people you mentioned or thier actions, needless to say they exist, meaning this isnt morally vacuous pig crap, just an accurate statement.

Just because some people call terrorists 'freedom fighters' doesn't mean that they can accurately be described as 'freedom fighters.'

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" is the exact kind of horseshit logic that Bush uses when he says that "some people" think that Intelligent Design is the scientific truth.

No, there is no significant similarity between the logic. Im not sure what you are referring to here. They are logically very different arguments.

People who believe in the scientific merit of ID are just plain wrong--who cares what they think? Same goes for people who embrace terrorists like Rantissi as freedom fighters.

If we were discussing the "embrace" of terrorists you would have a point. But we arent, so you dont.

[geek tragedy]

29. Galloway embraced Rantissi--he called Rantissi a 'martyr.'

Galloway supports terrorists who share his agenda.

[K-W]

32. If only that related to our discussion I would care. EOM

[geek tragedy]

35. It does relate to the entire point of the thread. Galloway denies stating

or implying that the insurgents shooting at British and American troops are 'martyrs.'

However, Galloway described the man who ordered suicide bombings in pizzerias and nightclubs as a 'martyr.'

Is there any reason to think that he'd consider the leader of Hamas a martyr but not the Iraqis whom he thinks are saving the entire world from American hegemony?

[K-W]

41. Then post it somewhere else on this thread.

If you dont want to discuss what I am discussing dont reply to me.

[geek tragedy]

48. My point was simple: Moral relativism is moral bankruptcy.

The fact that Rantissi was a freedom fighter in Galloway's mind speaks volumes about Galloway, and anyone who agrees with him.

[K-W]

50. That wasnt your point.

It also doesnt make any sense or apply in this case. But thanks for bringing up another non-sequitor.

[anotherdrew]

89. "Moral relativism" is a baseless stalking horse with no meaning

It's just used to limit discourse. "Self-hating" is used the same way in other contexts. The fire of violent extremism burns amongst all people at all times, the only way to put it out is through conscious attempts to limit 'emotional' thinking about matters and get as close as possible to a dispassionate view of events, motivations, desires and fears. Then a way may be found to halt the escalating violence which now feeds upon itself growing stronger day by day. This will require much unconditional forgiveness as well.

[Tesha]

34. Why? (NT)

[geek tragedy]

36. Well, George Washington didn't order the mass murder of women

and children and wasn't a theocratic nutbag, to start.

[K-W]

43. Really, because I thought they were both exactly the same.

Its a good thing the comparison police came to remind me that George Washington isnt the same as a member of Hamas.

It is such an easy mistake to make when you dont understand comparisons.

[On the Road]

117. George Washington, "Destroyer of Villages"

That's what the Indians called him. Our Founding Fathers did not have clean hands. And they were the expansionists rather than those fighting expansionism.

[Miss Chybil]

122. No, our founding fathers don't have clean hands, nor do Bush, Blair,

most other political leaders throughout history, across nations and terrorists. So... what's your point?

[On the Road]

123. My Point is That if the Standard is Killing Innocent Civilians

Many of our founding fathers did things not much different from terror attacks. A favorite ploy was to have half the colonial force lure the men out of the village for a battle, while the other half burned the village and killed the women, children, and elderly. This was started under the pilgrims, but continued until at least William Henry Harrison. These wars were by and large aggressive rather than a response to an invader, making them even less defensible.

And, there's a stigma that attaches to acts that these that is much stronger if the attacker is Middle Eastern rather than Irish or Basque.

I'm just trying to put the Iraqi attacks in context, as well as Galloway's remarks.

[Miss Chybil]

126. I understand what you're trying to say, but what I'd like to point out is

the old adage "Two wrongs don't make a right." Killing innocent civilians is wrong, no matter who does, or did, it. I know that's not what you mean. But you can't, on the one hand, lament the evils of our fathers, while on the other hand use those very evils to excuse the evil of others. If that were the case, why couldn't we use "the" Holocaust to justify, excuse - or simply UNDERSTAND, all others?

You know, were I an Iraqi, I'd probably fight tooth and nail for my country - nobody likes to be invaded - but, I wouldn't kill my own countrymen to punish the invaders! That's ludicrous and wrong. There is no excuse and there is no understanding.

[On the Road]

134. I'm Saying That While Galloway's Depiction is Repellent

it's not much different from celebrating American independence, the Irish struggle against the British, the French resistance, or any one of a number of wars which are now considered justified.

I agree that slaughter of civilians is wrong. Being aware of the details of different struggles means it's difficult to celebrate any war, even defensive ones. That's not such a bad position.

[anotherdrew]

26. hamas has quite the history, more blow-back from right-wing covert ops

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r

But even then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.

[geek tragedy]

31. That was a big miscalculation on the part of Israel.

It bears noting that Hamas was at war with Palestinian leftists and secularists at the same time it was trying to push the Jews into the sea.

Doesn't excuse Galloway's pro-Hamas agenda, though.

[anotherdrew]

73. I have no f-ing idea why he has nice things to say about hamas leaders

It's one thing to try to speak diplomaticly with the locals, but this seems to go a rather bit beyond that. It's a mystery to me and as you say, hamas should be no friend of Galloway...

What in hell could he have been thinking?

[geek tragedy]

78. Maybe the same thing when he said that his "dear, dear friend"

who is a "respectful man" and "an eminent diplomatic and intellectual person" shouldn't have to stand trial and should be free to travel the globe.

That "dear, dear friend" is Tariq Aziz.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/player2.html

<snip>
His support for the Ba'ath Party strong, he began to rise through the ranks of Iraqi politics after his party came to power in 1968. He served as a member of the Regional Command, the Ba'ath party's highest governing unit, from 1974 to 1977, and in 1977 became a member of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council.

In 1979, Aziz was named Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, where his primary role is to act as diplomat and explain Iraq's policies to the world.
<snip>

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

<snip>
Tariq Aziz, also Tareq Aziz (Arabic ØÇÑÞ ÚÒíÒ) (b. 1936) was the Foreign Minister (1979–1991) and Deputy Prime Minister (1979–2003) of Iraq, and a close advisor of President Saddam Hussein for decades. Their association began in the 1950s, when both were Ba'ath party activists, while the party was still officially banned.

Since Saddam was both Prime Minister and President of Iraq, Aziz often played the role of Iraq's de facto head of government.
<snip>

[anotherdrew]

84. I always got the impression Sadam kept Aziz fairly "clean"

background: Aziz was born in Mosul, in northern Iraq. Originally named "Michael Yuhanna", he was the only Christian (a Chaldean Catholic) in the Iraqi leadership.

I wonder why Iran suposedly tried to assasinate him?

Anyway, Galloway seem to have a penchant for going overboard with praise, but I'm not sure that Tariq Aziz isn't the best of the old Iraqi leadership. Surely the US was good friends with him for decades.

[geek tragedy]

88. He was one of Saddam's inner circle of advisors. Impossible to stay clean

in that regime.

Not to violate Godwin's law, but Aziz was the Baathist version of Ribbentrop.

He may or may not be proben guilty, but to suggest that there shouldn't even be a trial?

[anotherdrew]

91. well, I say yes to trial, but isn't the hague the right place for it?

I still have a hard time seeing how any trial in Iraq at this time by invader appointed officials could be considered fair in the fullness of history or in the mind of Iraqi's for long. They probably don't have a lot of love for him either though and maybe the whole lot should have simply been executed a long time ago. Dictators justice. Or perhaps best idea of all: Give them to Iran and let Iran handle those who were in power at the time of the I-I war, which was also an illegal war and if nothing else Saddam is clearly guilty of starting it.

[geek tragedy]

93. It should be Iraqis trying him. Which Iraqis is the question. eom

[TankLV]

124. What's so bad about Tareq Aziz?

He was just that - a diplomat and the representative of that government.

What is so bad about him?

I don't see anything bad about him at all.

[K-W]

5. This piece is a bit shady.

The headline is wrong he didnt defend the Martyrs comment, he denied the comment, or at least thier framing of the comment. It isnt clear. But the headline clearly contradicts this statement, "But he told BBC News he had not called insurgents or the Iraqi resistance martyrs. "

Also, the article goes through the inflamatory quotes again, gives Galloway's piece, and then provides plenty of sources that not only disagree with Galloway but ridicule him.

They cant let Galloway give his piece without the proper chorus of officials to make sure nobody takes him seriously.

[geek tragedy]

7. Well, he is on videotape saying it. And, he refers to Hamas terrorists

as "martryrs" so there's a reason responsible people don't take him seriously.

[K-W]

11. Thats not an excuse for bad journalism. EOM

[geek tragedy]

13. It would be good journalism to pretend that Galloway isn't a dissembling,

discredited asshat?

Dude represents the Muslim Brotherhood in Parliament. His denial that he supports terrorism is a damn lie.

[The Stranger]

14. Stop attacking people and try to come up with some facts.

[geek tragedy]

22. Galloway's videotaped remarks and description of terrorists

as "martyrs" don't count as facts?

[jmatthan]

59. What about the American martyrs?

Double speak?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0210-29.htm

Published on Thursday, February 10, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
The Rise of the American Martyr
by Justin Sane

Not long ago President Bush condemned Saddam Hussein for recruiting Palestinian suicide bombers by offering to pay $25,000 to their families. Last week, Mr. Bush proposed raising the death benefit for U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq to half a million dollars. When I learned of Mr. Bush's proposal, I couldn't help wonder: Will such payouts will create American martyrs?

Don't be tricked into thinking that Bush's proposal is about supporting the troops. This is the same man who sent American soldiers into combat under false pretenses, without the proper gear, and once they were deployed, cut their benefits! The proposed $500,000 death benefit payout is designed only for families of soldiers killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It is not applicable to anyone else in the military killed in the line of duty. These benefits offer substantial incentives for soldiers to die in two of the most dangerous places on the planet, and their "reward" is the knowledge that their family will be provided for after they are gone. Sounds like the same thing Saddam did. Hussein paid people who were martyrs for their cause, and you can bet that our soldiers' families will be told that their kid died for the noble cause of ending tyranny. And while they might not be promised a spot in heaven, you can be sure this rhetoric will invoke Bush's neverending themes of freedom--even though Iraq will not be truly free until Mr. Bush executes a real exit strategy.....

more

And what about the

"struggle" = "jihad" = "kampf"

Jacob Matthan
http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com
http://MoveTheUN.vblogspot.com
Oulu, Finland

[geek tragedy]

61. What does that article have to do with anything?

Just because some author uses the term glibly proves . . . nothing.

[jmatthan]

87. One man's terrorist is another man's martyr!

eom

[The Stranger]

111. Not really. Do you disagree with his reasoning,

. . . or just what "side" he is on? Because more and more it appears to be the latter.

The point here seems to be that what "side" one takes in these conflicts determines their loaded terminology, when in fact both "sides" seem to be doing the same thing.

But you just keep repeating the terminology, calling people "scum," etc. By doing so, you are inadvertently (and unwittingly (and ironically)) proving the above point.

[geek tragedy]

112. The point is that Galloway does not stand for any higher principles.

He isn't opposed to war or violence--he just hopes the other side wins.

Whether that other side be fascists, theocrats, or terrorists.

Galloway is a reactionary without moral principles.

[The Stranger]

119. There appear to be extremists on both sides, or on all three

sides (if you prefer). But he does seem to make a point that calling him names or maligning him does not address.

[geek tragedy]

120. What point was that? Besides whipping up hatred for Americans, Brits, and

Jews, that is.

[K-W]

16. Thanks for responding to something I never said.

If you want to argue with strawmen you can do it without me.

[CJCRANE]

23. There's no such thing

as the Muslim Brotherhood in the British parliament.

[geek tragedy]

28. The Muslim Association of Britain IS the UK branch of the Muslim

Brotherhood.

They've airbrushed their past--scrubbing their websites, etc--to give cover to their dirty alliance with a Stalinist like Galloway and the Trots of the SWP.

But there's no doubt that the Brotherhood is an active supporter of George Galloway and member of his RESPECT coalition.

[StrafingMoose]

8. Exactly.

[bemildred]

79. It has been clear for a while that the Beeb fears the British government

more than the likes of Galloway, and with some cause, so I agree. I still give them credit for putting it up. This seems much of a piece with previous attacks on Galloway e.g. the Oil-for-food stuff. My point was just that Galloway just loves this stuff, he gives far better rhetorically than he takes, and he gets lots of free publicity for his point of view. They can attack Galloway until the cows come home and not damage him a bit, and he will stand there grinning and calling them names the whole time. Take a look at the pic with the story. Do you think he made those speeches for any other reason than to bait Blair?

Edit: also, consider this thread and then consider Galloway's most likely purpose in being provocative. Has he got his POV published? Indeed.

[Demoiselle]

17. Let's talk about the word "martyr" for a minute....

It is a loaded word, of course....but in fact, a martyr is simply someone who sacrifices--perhaps his life-- for a cause. I'm not defending Galloway here, or condemning him, although it does look to me like he's doing a bit of parsing to cover his butt. I just find it distressing that quasi-religious utterly loaded terms like martyr have become so much a part of our discourse. In a more clear thinking world one might be able to call someone a martyr without necessarily endorsing his cause. (WWII Japanese Kamikaze pilots, for example.)

[K-W]

19. And he said "thier martyrs" EOM

[geek tragedy]

20. To call terrorists 'martyrs' is a clear LIE.

A martyr is someone who is killed for their religious beliefs, not because they lead a terrorist organization or lead violent lives.

Rantissi wasn't killed for his religious beliefs--he was killed because he was the operational leader of a vicious gang of terrorists.

It is dishonest propaganda to call killers 'martyrs.'

[K-W]

27. No, that definition of martyr is a lie.

A martyr is somebody who dies for a cause and is held up as an example for others. In fact they dont even have to die for the cause, just be held up as dying for it.

Martyr doesnt describe the person at all, really, it describes how the person is viewed by others.

[geek tragedy]

33. Do you own a dictionary? Look up "martyr." eom

[Laughing Mirror]

38. martyr according to Webster's dictionary, definition 2

2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=martyr&x=11&y=21

Galloway's use of the word martyr is correct.

[geek tragedy]

42. Bullcrap.

He didn't sacrifice anything. He lead a life of violence, and that violence came back on him. He reaped what he sowed.

[Laughing Mirror]

46. He?

What he? To whom are you referring?

Galloway said "their martyrs," meaning more than one.

[geek tragedy]

52. We're talking about Rantissi, whom Galloway described as a martyr. eom

[Laughing Mirror]

56. You were responding to my post and I was not talking about Rantissi

But now that you've brought him up, Galloway's use of the word martyr for Rantissi fits definition 2 in Webster's dictionary, but apparently not yours.

[geek tragedy]

60. Rantissi died because he was a violent man, not because of his beliefs

or his cause.

[K-W]

63. And MLK died because he needed fresh air.

You can point out other factors in the death all you want. He was fighting for a cause, he died in that fight, he fits the dictionary definition of martyr, you are wrong, but, of course that wont slow you down.

[geek tragedy]

66. He died because he was a violent murderer, not because of his cause

or beliefs.

You simply don't get that point. Rantissi died because of his own violent actions, not because of his beliefs.

[K-W]

68. Your false dichotomy is showing. EOM

[geek tragedy]

70. Was Baruch Goldstein a martyr? eom

[K-W]

72. I havent the foggiest idea. EOM

[anotherdrew]

75. technically I guess he was. 'martyr' isn't always a good thing

see what some say of him: "Goldstein was full of love for fellow human beings. He dedicated himself to helping others. Goldstein could not continue to bear the humiliations and shame nowadays inflicted upon us; this was why he took action for no other reason than to sanctify the holy name of God."

We need a lot fewer people who think they can "sanctify the holy name of God" on ALL sides. I don't know how or when that day wll come.

[Scurrilous]

76. His supporters think so:

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

Baruch Goldstein

Supporters sometimes hold celebrations at his tomb. His tombstone in Kiryat Arba reads:

Here lies the saint, Dr. Baruch Kappel Goldstein, blessed be the memory of the righteous and holy man, may the Lord avenge his blood, who devoted his soul to the Jews, Jewish religion and Jewish land. His hands are innocent and his heart is pure. He was killed as a martyr of God on the 14th of Adar, Purim, in the year 5754.

[geek tragedy]

80. His supporters are nutball assholes of the highest magnitude.

The same applies for Rantissi's supporters, even if they're from Scotland.

[K-W]

40. Apparently not a crazy geek tragedy dictionary,

where definitions change whenever its convienent for your argument.

The definition of martyr is someone who dies or suffers for a cause. Sometimes religion is implicit, sometimes not. Sometimes goodness is implicit, sometimes not.

Regardless Galloway identified them as "thier martyrs" clearly stating that they were martyrs to other people. His claim was not that they fit some definition of martyr, it was that some people hold them up as martyrs.

If you want to debunk him, I need to see proof that nobody in the Iraqi resistance is considered a martyr within the resisitance.

[geek tragedy]

44. Martyr began as a religious term to signify someone who suffered

religious persecution for his faith.

Martyrs are considered victims.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martyr

<snip>mar·tyr ( P ) Pronunciation Key (märtr)
n.
One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.

One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs
To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs.
To inflict great pain on; torment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


martyr

n 1: one who suffers for the sake of principle 2: one who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty for refusing to renounce their religion v 1: kill as a martyr; "Saint Sebastian was martyred" 2: torture and torment like a martyr


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


martyr

one who bears witness of the truth, and suffers death in the cause of Christ
(Acts 22:20; Rev. 2:13; 17:6). In this sense Stephen was the first martyr. The
Greek word so rendered in all other cases is translated "witness." (1.) In a
court of justice (Matt. 18:16; 26:65; Acts 6:13; 7:58; Heb. 10:28; 1 Tim.
5:19).

(2.) As of one bearing testimony to the truth of what he has seen or
known (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8, 22; Rom. 1:9; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10; 1 John 1:2).


Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

<snip>

Rantissi died because of his murderous actions, not his beliefs and principles.

It is a bastardization of the concept of a martyr to describe murderers as martyrs.

Under that definition, Mussolini was a martyr.

[K-W]

47. Right, it began that way, but it isnt the only meaning

so you have no point.

"It is a bastardization of the concept of a martyr to describe murderers as martyrs."

Plenty of martyrs of all varieties have murdered people.

But again, you are giving an argument as to why you wouldnt call them a martyr. That is not the issue here. The word clearly applies in the context Galloway used it in.

[geek tragedy]

51. Martyrs die because of their beliefs, not because of their actions.

People who live and die by the sword aren't martyrs.

That is the core principle behind the concept of martyrdom.

It says so in the dictionary.

To illustrate:

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Martyr

Timothy McVeigh: Not a martyr.

Yitzhak Rabin: Martyr.

Baruch Goldstein: Not a martyr.

[K-W]

54. thats quite creative EOM

[geek tragedy]

58. It's also the dictionary definition and the historical usage.

Mussolini wasn't a martyr. People who die in combat aren't martyrs.

It's really not that complicated. A martyr is someone who dies because of their beliefs and principles.

A martyr is not someone who engages in violence and has that violence revisted upon him.

The Israelis didn't kill Rantissi because of he refused to renounce his beliefs. They killed him because he was organizing violence against them.

[K-W]

62. No it actually isnt.

It's really not that complicated. A martyr is someone who dies because of their beliefs and principles.

Right

A martyr is not someone who engages in violence and has that violence revisted upon him.

Wrong. Use of violence has nothing to do with the issue and isnt in any of the definitions you listed. You are just adding this condition because it fits your argument. Martyrs can be violent or non-violent, and history pretty obviosly shows that.

[geek tragedy]

64. No, you're missing the entire point of the term.

A martyr is someone who chooses to suffer rather than betray his principles or faith.

You can't call every violent asshole who brings death upon himself a martyr.

That strips the term of any meaning.

[K-W]

65. The dictionary doesnt agree with you. EOM

[geek tragedy]

67. Really? Where does it say that anyone who dies because of their

actions is a martyr?

You consider Baruch Goldstein a martyr. That strips the term of any meaning at all.

To put it another way: Would Galloway call Baruch Goldstein a martyr?

Martyr is predominantly used as a term of praise.

[K-W]

69. The dictionary speaks for itself. EOM

[geek tragedy]

71. Yes it does.

One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.

One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs
To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs.
To inflict great pain on; torment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


martyr

n 1: one who suffers for the sake of principle 2: one who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty for refusing to renounce their religion v 1: kill as a martyr; "Saint Sebastian was martyred" 2: torture and torment like a martyr

__________________________________________________________

Only one of those definitions POSSIBLY applies to terrorists like Rantissi:

"One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle."

However, Rantissi did not die IN ORDER to further his cause. He died BECAUSE OF what he had done.

Rantissi did not sacrifice his own life--he got whacked because he was killing others.

Again, your definition applies to any thug who gets himself killed. That strips it of all meaning.

[TankLV]

125. You're losing this argument - horribly. Give it up.

You shift the facts to suit your fallacies. Just like bunkerboy.

It really is amazing.

You lost this "debate" long ago.

But it is fun to watch you sink like a lead balloon

[rocktivity]

81. DING DING DING! K-W, you're our grand prize winner!

"Martyr" doesn't describe the person at all, really, it describes how the person is viewed by others.

Galloway said "THEIR martyrs" because he understands that martyrdom is in the eye of the beholder. You may not feel that that someone SHOULD be considered a martyr. But if others do, and enough of them use it as their own motivation to act, then of course there's going to be a problem. I think that's all that Galloway meant--and I think he's right.

:headbang:
rocknation

[0007]

121. Right on! But some here just don't get it.

[High Plains]

102. Dude, take a deep breath

hamas terrorists hamas terrorists galloway asshot terrorist martyr hamas terrorists hamas terrorists galloway asshot terrorist martyr

We get the point.

So what about Ariel Sharon?

[geek tragedy]

103. What about him? He's irrelevant to Galloway's support for jihadist

terrorists.

[High Plains]

105. He's not irrelevant to your discussion of Rantissi and Hamas

Just wondering if you get equally bent out of shape about all terrorist assholes, ie Sharon.

[geek tragedy]

107. Sharon's a pig and a war criminal. Rantissi is still a dead murdering

scumbag, and Galloway is still an unprincipled bootlicker and friend towards fascists and theocrats and terrorists.

[PATRICK]

21. The PC game

Well he might have emphaisized that the major point is that the common populace by and large considers their insurgents martyrs and heros, but this is not examined which is not only a shame but a missed necessity. In the blunt game of winning, with such a perception among the foreign "minds and hearts", you lose. But no, somehow this about Galloway.

This resembles the unexamined fumbling for PC words to decribe our persistent enemy in Iraq. Unfortunately since it is a ragtag coalition that is hard to divide credit for actual names, even Al Qadea, or the singular shadow Zorro, Al Zaqiri, don't work. Trying to use the narrow derogatory "terrorist" much the same way that Nazis called the local reistance fighters was abandonned. "Rebels" was too uncomfortable considering both our own revolutionary heritage and the Southern rebellion nostalgia awash in the ruling RW. "Resistance fighters" was completely taboo as an term for obvious propaganda reasons.

Finally, by attrition of vocabulary, the perfect word "insurgents" came into common parlance. Not satisfactory, but virtuous by its lack of clarity or contradiction. It blurs by its murky shadow the nature of the "occupation" and the new regime as well. but all in all, this is very patently a losing war of worlds that exactly matches the progress of things on the ground.

The relative nicety or good intentions of the protagonists is not going to make much difference to the outcome. Hence their terrorism and our torture. Hypocrisy can't stop a bullet.

[geek tragedy]

25. An excellent post, but if one considers the context of Galloway's

other remarks and his history, it's perfectly logical to infer that he considers them martyrs.

Galloway thinks that the military head of Hamas was a martyr--is there any reason to believe he would have a lower opinion of someone fighting foreign occupiers?

One must also remember that Galloway is a Stalinist--so he has a very ruthless view as to who is a fair target for violence.

He believes that election workers and trade unionists who organize politically in Iraq instead of killing people are collaborators and quislings, and supports their murder--he would call it execution.

[K-W]

30. So now you are arguing that you can read George Galloways mind.

Priceless.

I dont think many people will be convinced that your expertise on Galloway gives you that ability, especially when you make such silly accusations.

Stalinist? Do you really expect to be taken seriously saying that?

[geek tragedy]

39. He called Rantissi a martyr. He called Yassin a martyr.

Those are cold, hard, undeniable facts.

And given that he said that the saddest day in his life was the fall of the Soviet Union, and the fact that he regularly sucks up the the Stalinoid Baathist party, yeah Stalinist is a good word for him.

[K-W]

49. Yet still you cant read his mind.

Funny how that works. You can think you know all kinds of things about him, but it still doesnt give you the ability to speak for him or read his mind.

[geek tragedy]

53. I can read his words, and they tell me everything I need to know

about this piece of offal.

[K-W]

55. ...right EOM

[Psephos]

128. Geek, still down in the mosh pit battling the fundies, I see. :-)

Well, you're playing a low percentage game there, but more power to you. You speak for more of us than you may realize. Anyway, it's certainly a sport to watch the thug apologists bend into pretzels while 'splaining away Galloway's pet scum murderers.

As I posted elsewhere, Galloway's Savile Row tailored suits, his first-name basis with the maitre d's of the best London restaurants, his stated preference for driving only expensive Mercedes, and his curious financing of his little villa in Portugal seem a bit at odds with what comes out of his mouth. His corrupt business partner in Iraq, his inability to produce clean accounting for the Mariam Appeal trust, and his serial addiction to litigation would be cause for street rioting in London if his politics were on the other side of the spectrum. But he gets a pass on all this because he's anti-war and anti-Bush. I'm grateful to Galloway for those two qualities, but not much else.

Wanna have some fun? Check out this site, and see how many of the criteria fit Galloway.

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html

Yes, Virginia, it IS possible to be anti-war and anti-Bush without neeeding to prettify those who think suicide bombings are a legitimate response, and that those who commit them deserve our understanding and acceptance.

Peace.

[PATRICK]

37. That is the Galloway issue indeed

and over the top on his part considering the real focus should be, at least at first, on what the majority opinion in the Arab world(or sufficient opinion to support it lasting indefinitely) actually is. Is is negative and weary like the Irish support for the IRA or growing and mainstream as in the ME?

Separately from losing the minds and heart battle success does not determine what is right or wrong, nor the cause justify all violence. sadly, while some like Galloway can be carried over to one side or the other both the hard truth and the justice of the situation goes begging still in the media. And controversy like this also obscures that lack.

Where are the martyrs for peace and justice- without bombs in the dark? They would be the only heroes I know of in this putrid war.

The heroes, the victims, the masses, the world- all collateral damage, carnage for the cause of a lie.

[geek tragedy]

45. I can't say I disagree with anything you wrote. eom

[lockdown]

57. Galloway says Blair and Bush 'have blood on their hands'

...

"What we say is we refuse to be part of a conspiracy to deny that it has anything to do with the fact that our country is going round the world setting fire to other people's countries and killing them.

"I think there is hardly a sentient being in the land left who doesn't believe these things are connected.

"I am utterly against the punishing of innocent people for the crimes of the guilty, whether it is done on the underground in London or the streets of Fallujah by George Bush's air force."

He repeated his view that it was Mr Bush who was the world's "biggest terrorist" and said that the US president and Mr Blair had shed far more blood than the bombers.

...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1543291,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

[Moochy]

77. Whatever he says is invalidated by his

callous and evil murderous choice to use the wrong noun. :sarcasm:

And I've heard the BBC use the term martyr when talking about what suicide bombers think they are doing. This combative framing on this thread is tiresome.

Should we call them murder bombers like the RW press wanted us to just to appease the word squad? I think I'd heard that reframing floated by the Bush Admin.

If the *UK* thinks Galloway is a terrorist inciting violence maybe they should deport him somewhere using one of their new laws. That or they could just dress him up like a Brazilian electrician and send him on the tube.

[EFerrari]

82. Extremist verbs equally dangerous.

"Framing" is too extreme. We should call it "mooshing" instead.

As in, "when * appointed Bolten, the struggle against global extremism mooshed back into a war." :silly:

[Moochy]

83. Definition of Moosh

Moosh ( موش ) is the Persian word for mouse!

And clearly won't fly for obvious reasons. Back to the drawing board sfexpat2000! ;-)

[confludemocrat]

90. The basis of this thread is brain-dead mischaracterization of what he said

He said they have "their martyrs". he didn't say he thinks they are martyrs for him. The greek tragedy nonsense is shrill, overwrought shilling for Zionists.

[geek tragedy]

94. Yes, I just got back from my meeting of the Elders of Zion.

It's all a plot.

Because condemning Galloway for supporting terrorism against Israel is part of the Zionists' plot to conquer the world.

Toodles.

[Caleb]

95. The International Jewish Conspiracy

http://www.internationaljewishconspiracy.com/

Galloway better watch out! LOL.

[geek tragedy]

96. Well, he said that Jewish money was responsible for Al Gore's

Iraq policy.

But at least he's not anti-Semitic.

[Caleb]

97. Wow...

He really said that? I can't believe people defend him here on a Democratic forum.

[geek tragedy]

99. Not everone who posts here is a Democrat, or a progressive.

http://www.newworker.org/nw30600.htm

"GEORGE GALLOWAY, the Labour MP at the head of the British campaign to end the blockade of Iraq tore into US vice-president and Democrat presidential hopeful Al Gore for his support for the pro-imperialist "Iraqi National Congress" (INC).

Gore met INC leader, northern Iraqi Kurdish rebels, and Iraqi Arab reactionary exiles largely unknown in their own country, last weekend. The INC delegation included Jalal Talabani and Nechirvan Barzani -- rival leaders of the two Kurdish parties that run the so-called northern Iraqi "safe-haven" under the protection of Anglo-American aircover. Others included Sherif Ali bin Hussein of the "Consdtutional Monarchy Movement" and two other pro-imperialist placemen.

A joint statement said "The Vice-President reaffirmed the Administration's strong commitment to the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and to bringing him and his inner circle to justice for their war crimes and crimes against humanity."

It went on to say "the United States views the INC as an authoritative and representative voice for the people of Iraq in their struggle to free themselves from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. In particular, both sides discussed measures by which the INC could improve their ability to represent the will of the Iraqi people both inside Iraq and on the world stage,"

This was met with derision from Galloway. "The decades of Zionist investment in Al Gore's political career are clearly paying off," he declared."

Since Israelis can't donate money to political campaigns, and the Christian Zionists have never been donors to Democratic candidates, well you can figure out pretty quickly who Galloway is talking about.

[Caleb]

100. He sounds like your typical neo-Nazi

He believes in "ZOG", which is a favorite of the neo-Nazis.

[geek tragedy]

101. Well, his party's main backers are Trots and the Muslim Brotherhood

Indecent and irrational statements are bound to flow from someone like that

[High Plains]

108. There is no Jewish money in American politics, right?

There is no pro-Israeli lobby? Give me a break.

[geek tragedy]

110. Do you think Jewish money is responsible for Al Gore's policy

proposals regarding Iraq?

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[High Plains]

104. I hope so

[geek tragedy]

106. What do you mean "I hope so?"

My sarcasm meter isn't working, if that's what you intended.

[Lori Price CLG]

74. Galloway rocks!! We need him here!! n/t

[Moochy]

85. You know what this thread needs?

The arabic word for...

طفلة بندا

BABY PANDA!!!

[yurbud]

86. GALLOWAY'S WAY: tell the truth and don't apologize when shills shreik

Democrats should have learned the no apologies part from the far right decades ago, but they should take note of the reception Galloway is getting in the US.

For some reason, many do for the GOP precisely what the GOP says we do for terrorists (but don't) we offer forgiveness and a hug when we should be driving a factual, moral, and legal stake through their heart.

A good deal of the terrorist threat is exaggerated, and a lot is inflamed by these nitwits thinking they can make the natives cower before their military toys long enough to steal their country.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[yurbud]

92. Freepers: read some Middle East history and google "assymetrical warfare"

You guys need to grow the fuck up. We don't live in a comic book world of Dr. Evils who do things that invite their own destruction.

A common thread in both Iraq and the terrorist attacks here are people who lack the military means (and influence over their own governments) to respond in kind to our attacks; our support of dictators like the Saudis, Musharraf, Mubarak, and in earlier times even Saddam; and our support of Israel's attacks on Palestinians which result in up to ten times the casualties Palestinian suicide bombers inflict on Israelis.

Look up what happened to the elected, secular president of Iran in the 1950s with the help of Kermit Roosevelt, or the deal we made with the Saudis to keep them in power no matter what.

When you feel powerless to influence you world through the political process, you turn to the avenues that are available to you: the mosque (or church) and/or direct violence.

This is not sappy "empathizing with the criminal" but cold-blooded analysis of the problem. If you don't understand the roots of the problem, you are unlikely to solve it. If someone has a cough and you give them a cough drop, that may soothe the symptoms temporarily, but if the cough is caused by lung cancer, the patient will die.

Also, we have to be realistic about which factors we can influence. As much as we don't like aspects of Islam, trying to change that as outsiders would be about as effective as China telling our evangelicals to chill out about gay marriage. It won't help.

I would prefer that everyone make their points through peaceful means (including us) and in fact, the Iraqis got more done last summer with mass demonstrations demanding elections than the insurgents have done with IEDs and snipers.

It may be hard, but try putting yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi or Palestinian who sees his neighbors or cousins kids blown up by our high tech doodads, and that particapating in the political process doesn't seem to be ending the occupation. Or better yet, you don't have to put yourself in their shoes. How did WE feel after 9/11? What did we want to do to anyone we could connect to the attack? We had the means to respond with artillery, bombers, tanks, and foot soldiers, and did so in Afghanistan. Our rage was so great that it was easily misdirected to attack Iraq. Now imagine after 9/11, we knew who did it, but because the were technologically more advanced or politically too valuable, our government REFUSED to respond. What would you want to do?

Do you understand that Arabs and Muslims are people too, who have the same reactions and make the same mistakes that the rest of us do? Or do you really believe that they are sub-human?

Your ignorance is killing people in Iraq, including our soldiers, and will likely lead to more hatred of the United States, not less.

As emotionally satisfying as it may be, running a foreign policy on lynch mob logic isn't in our best interests.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Kingshakabobo]

113. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[leftchick]

116. very well said!

thank you!

[brentspeak]

98. There goes his credibility in my eyes

The insurgants are not "average Iraqi citizens"; they're a mix of Saddam loyalists, Shiite fanatics, the usual criminal element, and foreign fighters filtering in from across the border.

And they are bloodthirsty murderers.

Just because someone is opposed to the war doesn't mean one should be on the insurgant's side.

[yurbud]

109. Saudi & Israel terror experts agree (& disagree w/you) on foreign fighters

"There goes his credibility in my eyes"
Posted by brentspeak

The insurgents are not "average Iraqi citizens"; they're a mix of Saddam loyalists, Shiite fanatics, the usual criminal element, and foreign fighters filtering in from across the border.

And they are bloodthirsty murderers.

Normally, about the only thing you could get Israel & Saudi to agree on is the weather.

But this analysis debunks the Bush argument that at least the Iraq War is attracting terrorists to Iraq instead of the US, as if there is a finite number, and we can kill enough to resolve the problem.

This study was done by examining interrogations of captured foreign fighters in Iraq, and background investigations of suicide bombers in Iraq.

KEY EXCERPTS:

The Boston Globe

Study cites seeds of terror in Iraq

War radicalized most, probes find

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | July 17, 2005


However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi officials and intelligence.

A separate Israeli analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior Al Qaeda operatives who are organizing the volunteers, ''the vast majority of Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."

****

Obaid said in an interview from London that his Saudi study found that ''the largest group is young kids who saw the images on TV and are reading the stuff on the Internet. Or they see the name of a cousin on the list or a guy who belongs to their tribe, and they feel a responsibility to go."

Other fighters, who are coming to Iraq from across the Middle East and North Africa, are older, in their late 20s or 30s, and have families, according to the two investigations.''The vast majority of them had nothing to do with Al Qaeda before Sept. 11th and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda today," said Reuven Paz, author of the Israeli study.''I am not sure the American public is really aware of the enormous influence of the war in Iraq, not just on Islamists but the entire Arab world."

FULL TEXT:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/

The history of past insurgencies including our own failed war in Vietnam show that the Bush approach is asinine. Every time to you kill someone, you inspire a brother, or cousin, or neighbor to take up arms. And if the war itself is obviously unjust it can attract sympathizers from outside even to the point of taking up arms, as the Israelis and Saudis are noting.

We had something similar happen with a terrorist here in the US about 150 years ago. John Brown was a well-known anti-slavery activist who raided slave-holding farms to liberate their slaves. When he tried to seize weapons from the Harper's Ferry armory, he was caught and hung. Rather than quell the anti-slavery movement, it galvanized it (the original lyrics of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" were about Brown's death). Within a few years, the Civil War followed because Lincoln said he would not allow slavery to spread into anymore new states.

The same thing happened to the French in Algeria. A French director made an extremely realistic movie, THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS, about the insurgency against the French. At the very end, the French capture the leader of the rebels hiding in a hole in a wall, and say "at last, we have broken the back of the rebellion." As the screen fades to black, the words that crawl up the screen say the rebellion continued, and a few years later, the French were forced to leave. If you can't stand to watch foreign movies, watch the Americanized remake, RED DAWN, the makes the resistance American teenagers fighting a Soviet and Cuban occupation.

Just because people aren't white (or as white as us), don't speak English, and put up with a dictator for decades, doesn't mean they are stupid or less human than us.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[Kingshakabobo]

114. You don't believe there are ANY average citizens?

I find it hard to believe we didn't make at least a FEW extra enemies with our "shock and awe" and midnight raids on civilian homes.

I don't believe Donald Rumsfeld's bullshit either.

[K-W]

115. The idea that such a resistance could exist in Iraq

without the support of and participation of average Iraqi's is absurd.

[yurbud]

118. FREEPERS: polls of Iraqis contradict GOP propaganda

check out gallup's and the coalition's own polls of Iraqis from 2004.

If we are teaching Iraqis democracy, we could start by paying attention to their opinions.


COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/cpapoll_files/frame.htm







USA TODAY/CNN/GALLUP:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm









Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[theboss]

129. God, Galloway is an asshole

It's not Iraqis doing the majority of the fighting in Iraq. It's outsiders.

Granted, the whole thing is a mess, but he doesn't seem to understand the type of mess it is. The one thing we've somehow avoided in this disaster is a civil war - though it's probably coming within 5 years.

[bemildred]

130. Yep, disgraceful. All those "outsiders" in Iraq.

Could not agree more.

[confludemocrat]

131. Lets' get this straight, let's see if I understand what we've learned here

No matter how much you pursue justice in this world, no matter how you defend the voiceless, no matter how enlightened you show yourself to be about the human condition, if you cross a fix-minded rigid fanatical political infighter fixed solely on the sanctity of Israel, you are an anti-semite.

That convention is not valid anywhere in the world except among people like greek tragedy, who speaks with all the openheartedness of a dick cheney or a john bolton, and lives for the overheated sliming of oponents in the manner of the swift boat lying scum.

Good premise for invective, slander and distortion in the service of the powerful, Greek Tragedy: a vendetta against a courageous man who speaks truth to power. God help Nelson Mandela if he ever crossed your path and didn't "follow the rules"-love Israel unconditionally and similarly smear anyone who doesn't get with the manifest destiny of Israel program.

[bemildred]

132. You WILL be deleted for that, do it yourself now. nt

[confludemocrat]

133. Why don't you go ahead and "denounce" me?

Thereby fulfiling my point. Unbelievable.

[bemildred]

135. It's not my problem, I don't care, I'm just letting you know.

Don't bother to thank me, you are obviously too upset.