George Galloway Debate

[cockneyrebel]

Simon B - do you really think that everyone in Iraq who attacks occupying forces is doing it for reasons of Islamic fundamentalism or love of Saddam Hussein?

If he's got the same pro-occupation politics of the AWL, then probably yes.

It's funny how the AWL and their supporters go apeshit over defending zionism yet want to taint a resistance of millions of people of all being fundamentalists.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes, I still don't praise Galloway for supporting the Islamist and Ba'athist death squads on the grounds of some nihilistic 'anti-imperialism'.

Ah, but did he "support Islamist and Ba'athist death squads" or is this more hearsay from the Telegraph and others?

There appears to be no proof...unless it's the sot of proof that the Telegraph specialises in...

 

[belboid]

Leaving asides the fairly shaky evidence for that statement, afaic, it doesn't matter why a large group of MPs gangs up against another MP. Let them run around stabbing each other in the back all they like. At least it keeps them occupied for a few hours.

c'mon, surely even you (as an anarchist, nowt personal) can see that a defeat for an anti-war lobby anywhere - even in that pisspoor pale reflection of british political reality that is the House of Commons - is a bit of a a bad thing?

 

[cockneyrebel]

You are, honestly, the only person I know who thinks he 'destroyed' GG in that debate, even those I know who were pro-war & pro-hitchens generally thought he didn't do that well.

Indeed. Simon B should get his tongue out of the Golum's arse.

 

[nino_savatte]

I just could be bothered to right 'topher', but had to distinguish him from his brother.

Is there a real difference between the two, though?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

If he's got the same pro-occupation politics of the AWL, then probably yes.

It's funny how the AWL and their supporters go apeshit over defending zionism yet want to taint a resistance of millions of people of all being fundamentalists.

Its not a resistance movement its a tragic civil war. A civil war that the UK / US has had a hand in creating.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Is there a real difference between the two, though?

Nope. But a pro-zionist, pro-occupation, Hitchen's arse licker might think so.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Its not a resistance movement its a tragic civil war. A civil war that the UK / US has had a hand in creating.

There is clearly a resistance movement in terms of the occupation. And they're clearly not all Islamists by a long shot.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

There is clearly a resistance movement in terms of the occupation. And they're clearly not all Islamists by a long shot.

The test would be if there was not any occupation would there be an effective and just govt formed or would the factions just carryon killing each other.

I reckon the latter.

 

[In Bloom]

c'mon, surely even you (as an anarchist, nowt personal) can see that a defeat for an anti-war lobby anywhere - even in that pisspoor pale reflection of british political reality that is the House of Commons - is a bit of a a bad thing?

Nope.

If we're all really lucky, it might help break the anti-war "movement" from parasitic scum like Galloway once and for all so that it can stop being a lobby and start being something halfway useful.

 

[belboid]

Nope. But a pro-zionist, pro-occupation, Hitchen's arse licker might think so.

oh there is, Chrissy baby may have been completely full of shit on the war, but he still has some brains that he has been known to use and can write well, even if his last book was an overly simplistic condemnation of religion.

 

[belboid]

Nope.

If we're all really lucky, it might help break the anti-war "movement" from parasitic scum like Galloway once and for all so that it can stop being a lobby and start being something halfway useful.

that seems to be a somewhat different point to your earlier one (ie GG is scum simply because he is a 'politician' - we'll skip over the failure to meaningfully define what a 'politician' is in your eyes). Now it appears that GG is scummy because he misleads an anti-war movement for personal gain.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Any idea which MPs voted against GG?

GG's statement: http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1505

And a point-by-point refutation of the Commissions claims from GG:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12487

On 11 occasions the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards either acknowledges that George Galloway did not personally benefit from “moneys derived from the former Iraqi regime” or accepts that George Galloway did make many declarations of interest over Iraq (Commissioner’s memorandum pars: 281, 292, 306, 308, 315, 321, 322, 325, 331, 336 and 354).

His memorandum also finds no evidence that the sums raised by the Mariam Appeal were spent on anything other than the purposes for which the Appeal was established. This is the third report (there have been two by the Charity Commission) to find that Mariam Appeal funds were properly spent.

The Commissioner’s report explicitly exonerates George Galloway of the libellous accusation made by the Daily Telegraph that he personally received moneys from the former Iraqi regime. At par 321, it states:

“If Mr Galloway had personally received moneys, whether properly or improperly, from the former Iraqi regime, or any other overseas source, he would have been obliged to register it under category 7 of the Rules (Overseas benefits and gifts). However I have not found evidence that Mr Galloway, directly and personally, received such moneys, and this issue does not therefore arise.”

The Commissioner also directly dismisses the libellous claim that George Galloway was in the “pay of Saddam Hussein”. At par 336, the Commissioner’s report says:

“I do not think it can be argued convincingly that Mr Galloway’s stance in opposing UK government policy on Iraq and the UN sanctions arrangements in particular were motivated by that financial support. Mr Galloway’s views were consistent over many years and long predated the establishment of the Mariam Appeal. To argue that he was simply a paid-mouthpiece of those governments would be a travesty of what I believe to be his consistent views on these issues, views which I have no reason to doubt stemmed from deep conviction.”

The accusation that George Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein was defamatory before this report and remains so now.

It seems the only heads that have rolled over Iraq are Andrew Gilligan's, Piers Morgan's and Galloway's.

Personally, was a little disappointed with the debate. I was hoping that GG would repeat his Senate performance.

But to be fair, the Speaker seemed to rule out any discussion of wider political issues or discussion of the Iraq War. Galloway did have a point that it was a bit unfair to prevent him from calling the members of the commission "dishonourable gentleman" when they had called him the same.

 

[cockneyrebel]

oh there is, Chrissy baby may have been completely full of shit on the war, but he still has some brains that he has been known to use and can right well, even if his last book was an overly simplistic condemnation of religion.

You're probably right but my feelings about pro-occupation tossers like the AWL mean I might go a bit overboard

The test would be if there was not any occupation would there be an effective and just govt formed or would the factions just carryon killing each other.

Just because there was a civil war doesn't mean all anti-occupation forces are islamists as the AWL would like to believe.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

oh there is, Chrissy baby may have been completely full of shit on the war, but he still has some brains that he has been known to use and can right well, even if his last book was an overly simplistic condemnation of religion.

He is a good prose stylist and still writes well sometimes, though increasingly his bizarre political positions are starting to have a negative impact on the quality of his prose.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Nope.

If we're all really lucky, it might help break the anti-war "movement" from parasitic scum like Galloway once and for all so that it can stop being a lobby and start being something halfway useful.

I agree with this. I though the anti war movement could have been a stepping stone towards building a left alternative to NL but it got hijacked by the SwP and their Islamist mates and pocketlining parasites like Galloway.

Maybe just maybe the movement could become relevant to the majority who need a left alternative if they ditched Galloway, the swaps and the Islamists.

 

[In Bloom]

that seems to be a somewhat different point to your earlier one (ie GG is scum simply because he is a 'politician' - we'll skip over the failure to meaningfully define what a 'politician' is in your eyes). Now it appears that GG is scummy because he misleads an anti-war movement for personal gain.

Maybe you could just completely misrepresent what I'm saying, that way everybody would be happy and nobody would think you were being a cunt. Especially not me.

 

[belboid]

Any idea which MPs voted against GG?

I think it went thru without a vote

 

[cockneyrebel]

Personally, was a little disappointed with the debate. I was hoping that GG would repeat his Senate performance.

To be fair as the speaker cut him off froming about virtually anything that would have been hard.

 

[belboid]

Maybe you could just completely misrepresent what I'm saying, that way everybody would be happy and nobody would think you were being a cunt. Especially not me.

what the fuck are you on about? Have you forgotten what you wrote?

It's not about how I feel about Galloway personally, it's about the simple, undeniable fact that he is a career politician.

So my precis of your view strikes me as accurate, if its not please correct me rather than throwing all your toys out of the pram because someone has had the temerity to challenge you

 

[dum dum]

I agree with this. I though the anti war movement could have been a stepping stone towards building a left alternative to NL but it got hijacked by the SwP and their Islamist mates and pocketlining parasites like Galloway.

Maybe just maybe the movement could become relevant to the majority who need a left alternative if they ditched Galloway, the swaps and the Islamists.

Which Islamist groups do you think have hijacked the anti-war movement?

 

[Simon B]

Simon B - do you really think that everyone in Iraq who attacks occupying forces is doing it for reasons of Islamic fundamentalism or love of Saddam Hussein?

name one organised group who are neither Islamist nor Ba'athist.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Which Islamist groups do you think have hijacked the anti-war movement?

Muslim Association of Britain for one who are in turn associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Then you have the disgraceful 'we are all Hizbollah' posters on a swappie demo.

 

[belboid]

name one organised group who are neither Islamist nor Ba'athist.

that's not what he asked tho, is it? And do you think that everyone who decides to undertake an attack, even under the aegis of an Islamic or Ba'athist (are there any ba'athist groups left?) group, supports everything they say, or are they just attacking the bastards occupying there country?

 

[dum dum]

Muslim Association of Britain for one who are in turn associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Then you have the disgraceful 'we are all Hizbollah' posters on a swappie demo.

Yeah terrible.....the trade unionists in Lebanon were saying exactly the same

 

[Simon B]

I've got no time for Galloway, so the above doesn't really apply.

You and the AWL on other hand seem to like quoting and associating with creeps like Hitchens and Nick Cohen.

But as said as the AWLs leadership are the same brand of social inadequates that doesn't really surprise me.

And oh how controversial you are having a "anti anti zionist" tagline. Pathetic.

I quoted what Hitchens said on this occasion because I thought it was interesting and worth quoting.
The AWL debated Cohen at their summer school. The point of a debate is that it is with someone you disagree with.
They also had a self-described anti-Leninist speaking, who also spoke at the PR summer school.

The anti-anti-zionist thing is a dig at both 'anti-zionists' and more generally all those nihilists on the left who define their politics by what they're against.
I'm glad it's annoying the right people.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Yeah terrible.....the trade unionists in Lebanon were saying exactly the same

Can't see secular Lebanese trade unionists being Hizbollah's favourite people.

'we don't want anything from the west we just want to destroy you' is a comment by Hizbollah.

 

[dum dum]

Can't see secular Lebanese trade unionists being Hizbollah's favourite people.

'we don't want anything from the west we just want to destroy you' is a comment by Hizbollah.

You know the Lebanese communist party and the Lebanese trade union movement are both supporting Hezbollah?

Who said that quote?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You know the Lebanese communist party and the Lebanese trade union movement are both supporting Hezbollah?

Who said that quote?

I'll dig the quote out when I have more time. Mind you I think the Galloway worshippers on here are clutching at straws here to try to defend their idol.

 

[dum dum]

I'll dig the quote out when I have more time. Mind you I think the Galloway worshippers on here are clutching at straws here to try to defend their idol.

Please do,that really doesn't sound like a genuine Nasrallah quote to me.

I guess so.I hadn't noticed anyone worshipping GG