George in Washington

At last, America gets its fix of George Galloway. Love him (as I do on a personal level) or loathe him (as I do for his coalition with reactionary elements), the man is a legend.

Ill expect a comment from Liam on this one - I know the lad is a fan

George should be the one to apologize. Oh wait, Galloway? :drums:

I find him personally deplorable, i find his politics dispecable. But, i could have an iota of respect for him if he could explain HOW he was taken out of context when, in 1994, he said, in front of the Global media that Saddam Hussein was a man of strength, courage and that word i always forget. Somehow, i dont think he could.

Uncle Liam wrote: I find him personally deplorable, i find his politics dispecable. But, i could have an iota of respect for him if he could explain HOW he was taken out of context when, in 1994, he said, in front of the Global media that Saddam Hussein was a man of strength, courage and that word i always forget. Somehow, i dont think he could.

I heard him on the radio the other day (speaking, I believe, from his villa in Portugal) and he claimed that he was talking about the people of Iraq, not Hussein.

He is quoted on quite a few internet sites (including THIS ONE) as having said:

"I greet you too, in the name of the Palestinian people…..I thought the President would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam…Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory until Jerusalem."

So, on this evidence, he would appear to be a little mistaken.

He is a political opportunist,a sympton of the wider issue,and certainly not to be trusted in any capacity,by all factions concerned.But what i found disturbing,was Jeremy Paxman said Galloway will be found guilty without a Fair trial in USA.

BIGINOIL wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: I find him personally deplorable, i find his politics dispecable. But, i could have an iota of respect for him if he could explain HOW he was taken out of context when, in 1994, he said, in front of the Global media that Saddam Hussein was a man of strength, courage and that word i always forget. Somehow, i dont think he could.

I heard him on the radio the other day (speaking, I believe, from his villa in Portugal) and he claimed that he was talking about the people of Iraq, not Hussein.

He is quoted on quite a few internet sites (including THIS ONE) as having said:

"I greet you too, in the name of the Palestinian people…..I thought the President would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam…Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory until Jerusalem."

So, on this evidence, he would appear to be a little mistaken.

"Sir, I admire you strength, your courage, your scud missile attacks on tel aviv and your pledge to give the familys of suicide bombers $25000 if they kill jews"

Now, as i have explained in previous threads, saddams policy here makes him a conspirator in international terrorism. So does this mean that George Galloway supports, or at least admires terrorists?

I must plead exam leave. Got to cram for tomorrow morning, but Ill post a full reply on the nature of political opportunism later on tomorrow.

In the mean time, The quote about suicide bombers is absolutely untrue. Not even the Daily Telegraph would quote it, but that wouldnt stop a couple of "labour friends of Iraq" and other groups attribuiting them to Galloway.

If you can find it Liam, and proove it to be true, I would be shocked.

To support those who resist Israeli occupation, Iraqi occupation or any others who are at the wrong end of the empire - ISNT to support terrorism.

The complexites of the basis of terrorism aside, it has become a catch all phrase to label those from the passive secularists to misguided religous with.

the quote i gave is a complete fabrication, made by myself, and i will make clear that Galloway NEVER said that. However, the point i was making is that if galloway stood there, on behalf of the palestinian people, then it seems that he supported the scud missile attacks on tel aviv, and saddams policy towards suicide bombers family who killed jews.

So any spokesperson or representative of the Nationalist people of the North of Ireland is a terrorist by that logic?

No, absolutely not.

And likewise, a supporter of the Palestinian struggle isnt automatically a terrorist.

Anybody with legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel isnt automatically an Anti- Semite either.

To say so is an absolute lie, and serves no purpose other than to combat rational debate around an issue - which I gather those who supported a reactionary, unjust, unnecessary, failed War would prefair.

More tomorrow - for now its study.