Options
Galloway = stupid terror apologist
jsand
Posts: 646
Congratulating Hezbollah:
http://emea-search.blinkx.com/player/itn.jsp?id=/itn/20060826/20060826_ITN_21_26_galloway
"And in particular, to their leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, whose name now rings in joy around the world.”
http://emea-search.blinkx.com/player/itn.jsp?id=/itn/20060826/20060826_ITN_21_26_galloway
"And in particular, to their leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, whose name now rings in joy around the world.”
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
not in civilian deaths...boo yah!
Did you catch his live shows from the Lebanon, this weekend? I made a thread about them, and tried to get it going, so people could listen to him and react to his points, from any of the interpretative sides there are to seeing this issue.
Guess it depends on your definition of win.
Just watched it. I must have missed something because at no point did I hear George Galloway excusing terrorism. However, I did hear him congratulating the Lebanese people and Hizbollah on managing to stand up to Israeli state terror.
A man in tune with the world. I don't see why you would have a problem with him you being an open minded American and all.
"freedom" must not include any speech/statements that do not support Israel...:rolleyes:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9071731896689197790&q=george+galloway
That's what I heard too. But if the voice-over's claims are right, I feel he does go overboard praising Hizbollah. But it seems he's a loose cannon. Am I right?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Yeah he's a loose cannon, in that he doesn't tow the party line and isn't afraid of critisicing Tony Blair. I think it's healthy in a so-called democracy to have people like him around.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
its quite funny that Israel was set up under the pretence of returnin the jews to there home land but it always had the distinct smell of getting them the fuck out of western europe!
George Galloway has the balls to point out what he see's as the truth and in a world where the dim and singleminded greedy bastards who only have there personal finances in mind while invading poorer semi defenceless countries, oh i forgot to mention about the religeous fanatics in the form of OUR leaders, i think Galloway is an important figure, don't be supprised if he's assasinated within the next few years, maybe an accidental car crash in paris or a shot from the Texas book depository are waiting for him.
To break down borders and realise that we are one species and then the true patriotism comes from pride and love of the human race, not from the tribes of which we currently are divided, open your eyes your mind will see! - ME
How so?
For someone so obsessed with language usage, you sure are hiding behind it now.
Yeah, its time to cut Israel loose. I mean, everyone else in the world buys weapons, but Jews? Ridiculous!
You did make it to the bottom of the cartoon, no? A little deeper then Jews buying weapons and using them on civilians.
Israel uses weapons on civilians, and its a total shitstorm. Much of the rest of the world does it, and you can hear the crickets.
Skip the Israel rhetoric and get to the part of the money.
Otherwise Israel has become a conflict with a lot of attention and coverage. Too bad for Israel that can't do anything as bad as others get away with without a shitstorm. They can whine about that if they want, doesn't mean that what they at times do is acceptable. Others being worse is always a bad defense, is it implies you dont really have one.
That being said, I feel some of the Israel critics around here go a bit too much over the top with their accusations and sentiments.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Yes, I know that others doing the same or worse is a bad defense. I am not justifying the bombing of Lebanon, I think that the bombing was about the worst thing the Israelis have done since the state's inception.
And yes evenflow?, I know ... Money is obviously an issue.
They united the Arab world against Israel, and they're still standing. Whereas the Israeli and Lebanese governments are mortally weakened. That plain enough for you?
http://www.invbiznews.com/wordpress/?p=424
Still standing is not the standard way to define victory in military terms, although I do like this new approach ... You cannot ever lose a war if you redefine the terms of victory.
As for your first point ... Hmm. I would counter that a) the Arab world has long been united against Israel, well before this war started and b) certain Arab governments still have diplomatic ties with Israel, despite what happened in Lebanon. Olmert's government may be mortally weakened, but Israel as a whole is not.
For an army, funded by the world's biggest superpower, not to be able to wipe out a little gaggle of hoodlums, is a major defeat. To say, "we've wiped out two thirds of them", when it's obvious that this isn't the case and that people are queuing up to join, well, if that's not a defeat, I don't know what is. When the bombardment from the other side doesn't deplete appreciably, that's a defeat. Politically, it's a defeat, too.
My first point really considers the conflict as going on for far longer than this recent set of events. Decades.
Israel will never be weakened. It's got hundreds of US-supplied nukes. But yes, its government has taken a whupping.
Well, they did wipe out several hundred for sure ... These fighters are easily replaced, granted. "Little gaggle of hoodlums" is unfortunately not an accurate assessment. It it was, the war would have been over in a week.
If you want to define defeat as not realizing the goal of completely destroying Hezbollah, then yes, Israel lost. Setting this as the goal probably set the stage for defeat before the war even began, however. If the goal has been set as giving Hezbollah a spanking, followed by a UN deployment on the border, then they could have declared a victory of sorts.
That statement is on par with the Palestinian "resistance" being described as nothing more than throwing a few rocks.
Ridiculous.
I'm not saying that they're a gaggle of hoodlums myself, or akin to a few street protestors throwing rocks. I accept reports of the international funding Hizbollah is said to receive, and its level of paramilitary and political organisation. I'm saying that with a vastly disproportionate degree of military power, and given the alleged superiority of MOSSAD intelligence, the Israeli government seemed to venture into the conflict, believing that a wholesale strike against the southern Lebanese infrastructure would inevitably dwarf resistance, regardless of whether Hizbollah were using the civilian population as shields. The logic of such an attack was, well, it's unfortunate and immoral that Hizbollah are hiding behind civilians, but our objective is to deplete Hizbollah and that's that. This sort of attitude underestimated the extent of Hizbollah power and resistance. The war was lost on an assertion that, if as much damage was done before any ceasefire, Hizbollah resistance would have been appreciably weakened. But it's likely it's strengthened.
Okay, Galloway's rhetoric is goading and gloating, to many people, regardless of whether they are pro-Zionist or a "supporter", to use a horrible word, of neither side in the combat. Many people might find his talk distasteful, and driven by a need for sensationalist publicity. However, he represents a voice that raises points about who really did benefit from the war. In terms of who makes the money to rebuild southern Lebanon, it's possible Hizbollah will reap the rewards there. It's a sad and inevitable outcome - or more likely, a pretext - of any conflict, that somebody benefits monetarily.