NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5020222.stm

Once again George feels the urge to open his mouth and once again no excuses can be made for the vile excrement that pours out. It sickens me to think that this man is an elected representative of our country.

i enjoyed the response over at lenin's tomb (http://leninology.blogspot.com/):


Look, I'm not supposed to be here, I've got exams shortly, but - I'm invited to distance myself from George Galloway for saying that the killing of the Prime Minister would be morally justified. I don't know if GQ fucked up the interview in which he's supposed to have said this, but come on! I'm not going to slag off Galloway merely because he didn't go far enough. Okay, I take the point. He should have said that the best way to spread Blair's philosophy would be to blow his brains out. He should have said that if the Nuremberg laws were applied, he and several of his cronies would be hanging over the Tyburn. He should have said that the only tragedy in the instance of Blair perishing in a suicide attack would be the loss of life on the part of the executor. He should have said that at least if we hung the cabinet, no innocent lives would be lost.

But what do you expect? - the guy's a reformist, a former Labour Party member, of course he's going to let emotions cloud his judgment.

(This is by way of an enormous and gratuitous 'fuck you' to the sanctimonious, unctuous idiots who publicly called for and supported the mass killing of innocents in Iraq. Eat it, and eat it raw, you nauseating pillocks).

i enjoyed the response over at lenin's tomb (http://leninology.blogspot.com/):


Look, I'm not supposed to be here, I've got exams shortly, but - I'm invited to distance myself from George Galloway for saying that the killing of the Prime Minister would be morally justified. I don't know if GQ fucked up the interview in which he's supposed to have said this, but come on! I'm not going to slag off Galloway merely because he didn't go far enough. Okay, I take the point. He should have said that the best way to spread Blair's philosophy would be to blow his brains out. He should have said that if the Nuremberg laws were applied, he and several of his cronies would be hanging over the Tyburn. He should have said that the only tragedy in the instance of Blair perishing in a suicide attack would be the loss of life on the part of the executor. He should have said that at least if we hung the cabinet, no innocent lives would be lost.

But what do you expect? - the guy's a reformist, a former Labour Party member, of course he's going to let emotions cloud his judgment.

(This is by way of an enormous and gratuitous 'fuck you' to the sanctimonious, unctuous idiots who publicly called for and supported the mass killing of innocents in Iraq. Eat it, and eat it raw, you nauseating pillocks).

I just read some of that forum - I'm lost for words.

Hasn't this thread already been done?

This = Old News.
Galloway = A Twat.
Summary = Accomplished.

The so-called leftists who throw a huge fuss about Iraq being an imperialist war = (okay, I'm bored of the equalling, let's revert to prose). Iraq was not an imperialist war, granted the motives were not entirely clear but the results are clear. While the physical safety of the Iraqis has decreased, their liberty has increased exponentially. The Iraqis are living the addage that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. The 'leftists' who oppose it wreek of exceptionalism, 'we shouldn't put up with tyranny but the A-rabs should' (often abusing the ultimate bullshit of 'moral relativism'), and (amongst the old Soviet-loyalists) who say that interventionism is never justified but still condone the Brezhnev doctrine.

Conclusion, grr.

The Iraqis are living the addage that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

indeed they are. that's why so many are taking up arms against the imperialists, and why so many of those that aren't have come out in favor (or at least don't actively oppose) those that do.

Hasn't this thread already been done?

I don't know, there may have been - the news is a tad old but I figured I'd post it anyhow.

i enjoyed the response over at lenin's tomb (http://leninology.blogspot.com/):


Look, I'm not supposed to be here, I've got exams shortly, but - I'm invited to distance myself from George Galloway for saying that the killing of the Prime Minister would be morally justified. I don't know if GQ fucked up the interview in which he's supposed to have said this, but come on! I'm not going to slag off Galloway merely because he didn't go far enough. Okay, I take the point. He should have said that the best way to spread Blair's philosophy would be to blow his brains out. He should have said that if the Nuremberg laws were applied, he and several of his cronies would be hanging over the Tyburn. He should have said that the only tragedy in the instance of Blair perishing in a suicide attack would be the loss of life on the part of the executor. He should have said that at least if we hung the cabinet, no innocent lives would be lost.

But what do you expect? - the guy's a reformist, a former Labour Party member, of course he's going to let emotions cloud his judgment.

(This is by way of an enormous and gratuitous 'fuck you' to the sanctimonious, unctuous idiots who publicly called for and supported the mass killing of innocents in Iraq. Eat it, and eat it raw, you nauseating pillocks).

That was brilliant

That was brilliant

I fairness, considering that the guy who wrote it seems to have an IQ of about 12 he seems to have tried really hard although I must say that there's a disappointing lack of diversity shown in his choice of expletives.

Who cares: Not I

So Galloway doesn't like Blair. Meh, who cares.

Is it right to kill innocent civilians because the ruler of a nation orders the invasion of your country? Hell no.

Is it right to kill the leader of the troops occupying your homeland? ... Well... What would you do?

Bizarre morality if you ask me.

Understandable, yes. Predictable, yes. Moral? Hardly.

I fairness, considering that the guy who wrote it seems to have an IQ of about 12 he seems to have tried really hard although I must say that there's a disappointing lack of diversity shown in his choice of expletives.

awwww, does the tomb scare you?

To be fair, Galloway doesn't say he would do it, or support anybody who did it, but that he could understand how it would be logical and could be morally justified as an attack on a political leader.

What's wrong with that?

This = Old News.
Galloway = A Twat.
Summary = Accomplished.

It is old news, but I think that Galloway has a point. If we're having Saddam up in the most unbalanced trial ever (where one of the witnesses was offered $500 to give false evidence, and where 23 of the 146(?) people said to have been killed are actually still alive, and the judge threw out one of Saddam's defendants for "being rude"... but anyway) where he's basically going to be executed, because it's a show trial, despite him being able to legitimately free himself from all prosecution because he was the leader of the state at that time, then maybe Blair and Bush should be in a similar situation.

Iraq was not an imperialist war, granted the motives were not entirely clear but the results are clear.

Civil war and a powerless government brought on by an illegitimate war that has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, to no real benefit to the Iraqi people, essentially because Bush wanted to please his daddy, you mean?

While the physical safety of the Iraqis has decreased, their liberty has increased exponentially. The Iraqis are living the addage that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Tell that to the Iraqis in Basra, or pretty much anywhere else in Iraq where it's under martial law. And Iraq was actually pretty liberal, as long as you didn't criticise the government. It didn't have Shar'ia laws, you could produce and drink alcohol if you wanted to, TV and radio wasn't banned (although it was mostly state-controlled, admittedly) and people had freedom to travel around. It was only when people were being treasonous that things went awry for them, liberty-wise. And at least they weren't dying on the streets due to sectarian violence and over-zealous foreign soldiers.

The 'leftists' who oppose it wreek of exceptionalism, 'we shouldn't put up with tyranny but the A-rabs should' (often abusing the ultimate bullshit of 'moral relativism'), and (amongst the old Soviet-loyalists) who say that interventionism is never justified but still condone the Brezhnev doctrine.

What the fuck are you on about?

The average Iraqi probably doesn't want to step out into the streets at the moment. At least you could cross the road without getting blown up/shot at/interned when Saddam was in power.

The current actions, which are basically martial law and a government that can accomplish nothing and controls about half of Baghdad and nothing more is not a showing of freedom. It's basically an excuse for why the war was started.

"Yep, let's get these WMDs... ooh-er. Can't find any... well... let's take Saddam, then. Right, now he's on trial until people realise it's a sham and break him out. Urmm... Freedom and Democracy it is!"

He seems like a leftist version of Ann Coulter to me. They'd make a great pair on a show like Crossfire. She could rant about how we need to conquer every Muslim land and convert them all to Christianity and he could call for her assasination.

He seems like a leftist version of Ann Coulter to me. They'd make a great pair on a show like Crossfire. She could rant about how we need to conquer every Muslim land and convert them all to Christianity and he could call for her assasination.
It would be a beautiful, beautiful sight. And it would need to be broadcast live, so that when Galloway headbutted Coulter, blood would be flying everywhere and it wouldn't be censored or anything.

And it would be "art", so the BBC would get away with showing it (I imagine).

Look, I'm not supposed to be here, I've got exams shortly, but - I'm invited to distance myself from George Galloway for saying that the killing of the Prime Minister would be morally justified. I don't know if GQ fucked up the interview in which he's supposed to have said this, but come on! I'm not going to slag off Galloway merely because he didn't go far enough. Okay, I take the point. He should have said that the best way to spread Blair's philosophy would be to blow his brains out. He should have said that if the Nuremberg laws were applied, he and several of his cronies would be hanging over the Tyburn. He should have said that the only tragedy in the instance of Blair perishing in a suicide attack would be the loss of life on the part of the executor. He should have said that at least if we hung the cabinet, no innocent lives would be lost.Harh! Sad but true. We're ruled by a bunch of pathetic war criminals. At the very least, they should be shamed & exiled for treason.

awwww, does the tomb scare you?

I think that he was referring to you not Lenins Tomb

It would be a beautiful, beautiful sight. And it would need to be broadcast live, so that when Galloway headbutted Coulter, blood would be flying everywhere and it wouldn't be censored or anything.

And it would be "art", so the BBC would get away with showing it (I imagine).
Oh God Yes.

Anyone here have a personal line to Mr "Respect"? This needs to happen, and it needs to happen right now.

I think that he was referring to you not Lenins Tomb

unlikely, unless we've got some major reading comprehension problems going on here

I'm American, but I wouldn't mind Galloway's assination.
I'm amazed Britain elects people like that.
We've got some crazy fucks (Feingold and Boxer), but they're not going to publicly wish the death of Bush (even though they probably do so privately)

To be fair, Galloway doesn't say he would do it, or support anybody who did it, but that he could understand how it would be logical and could be morally justified as an attack on a political leader.

What's wrong with that?

Well, the problem is that he said he would notifiy people of a plot to assassinate him to prevent more anti-muslim sentiment. He made it quite clear that he thinks Blair deserves to die and absent of other consequences would try to stop someone from doing it.

unlikely, unless we've got some major reading comprehension problems going on here

We'd need to ask Genaia3 to know for sure who he meant and find out where the comprehension problem lies. Since this is possible I will do so.

Genaia3 did you speak of Lenin's tomb or Free Soviets when you replied to Dhommes "that's brilliant" commentary of FS's post with your post of

"I fairness, considering that the guy who wrote it seems to have an IQ of about 12 he seems to have tried really hard although I must say that there's a disappointing lack of diversity shown in his choice of expletives." ?

There. Done. Let's get this reading comprehension thing sorted