I've just been reading through that report and already I can see a few things that are a bit off. The general point, that UAF and STWC made dodgy alliances with islamists, is undisputable, but there's certain parts of that document that conflate being soft on islamism with being against a war with Iran. A lot of emphasis is placed on being against war with iran, or appearing on PressTV, as evidence in itself of being pro-Islamist. OF course the irony is when it comes to Islamism, bombing Iran is the one point that Melanie Phillips and the US right and the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia and Al-Queada are in total agreement. The word "Islamism" goes from meaning supporting Jihad in to supporting Iran, with no contextual explanation about how the two are geo-politically different. I'm not going to dispute that Galloway's a snake, but does this logic extend to anyone who doesn't support regime change in Iran? Likewise would it be possible to list all the people who've argued in favour of arming Al-Quaeda in Syria, or arming the Barhraini and Qatari dictatorship, or have appeared on Al-Jazeera (and btw Qatar is every bit a theocracy as Iran) as also being pro-Islamist? Because you could have a field day showing how often leading conservatives have been willing to arm and finance Islamist dictatorships in the gulf states, how willing they are to send support to Al-Queada soldiers in the field in Syria, if you were so inclined.
Also the stuff involving Galloway and the miriam appeal seems a bit desperate. Surely, if there was substance to those accusations, then something would've been done by now? These aren't even remotely new, they're the accusations the Galloway sued the Daily Telegraph over iirc, as of yet no-one's managed to make any of those accusations of Gallowas recieving millions of oil money stick in court, all the attempts at sub-committee's here and in the US to pin something on him haven't made it very far. Perhaps this particular aspect of the case against Galloway's not as strong as they would like. Why it gets such emphasis here I have no idea, god knows there's no shortage of stuff to throw at Galloway that really is based on undisputed fact, but I think it's revealing.
Infact I might return and pick through that report in detail. Not because I dispute the overall point - that UAF and other left groups have flirted and supported with Islamists because I know they do and let them hang their head in shame for all eternity for it - but because I think there's an anti-Iran streak running through that needs to be looked at. In this report being against war with Iran, or appearing on PressTV, is used as innuendo to suggest that an individual is pro-Islamist. I don't like PressTV very much myself, and those appearing on it have a lot of explaining to do, but in itself it's not evidence of being an Islamist. Certainly if people on the right can vehemently argue in favour of sending money and weapons to Al-Queada in Syria, yet somehow escape the charge of being Pro-Islamist, whereas merely appearing on PressTV is seen as wholehearted approval of Islamism, its an interesting bit of hypocrisy. Iranian Islamism bad, Saudi-backed Islamism and al-Queada good.
I like some of the stuff in the post-script though.
