Tough On Terrorism, Tough On The Causes Of Terrorism

Faction

Proto-col
Messages
21,787
Reaction score
973
Location
Bristol
"Tough On Terrorism,
Tough On The Causes Of Terrorism.
It's Not Rocket Science"​

George Galloway said:
"Only a fool believes that this came out of nowhere. It came out of a deep swamp of hatred and bitterness that we have soaked in blood these last few years. This is obvious to any sentient being. And the only way that we can truly resolve this matter - and of course, in the interim, I'm thoroughly in favour of the most rigorous policing and intelligence response - but the only way we can really be clear of them is if we reduce the number of people out there who are ready to support those who are ready to hurt us. The fish has to swim in water, and bin Laden is swimming in this water, in this swamp that we have created.

Muslims should unite with the rest of us in absolute rejection of terrorism and of war. We must be tough on terrorism and tough on the causes of terrorism. It's really basic common sense. It's not left wing,.

It's just basic common sense that if you don't drain the swamp, if you don't intervene to stop the ongoing calvary of the Palestinian people, who for 50 years have been dispossessed, sent to the four corners of the world as refugees, regularly massacred, occupied, if you don't do something about the hundreds of thousands of foreign soldiers occupying Iraq, if you don't stop propping up the puppet presidents and the corrupt kings who rule the Muslim world almost without exception from one end to the other, then you lay bare your double standards, your hypocrisy, when you talk about liberty.

What our leaders want is liberty for us, but only up to a point, and they're ready to take that away if it suits them, but no liberty for anybody else. And the people in the Muslim world can see it very clearly. They know that nobody gave a toss about the thousands who were killed in Fallujah. Nobody in the British Parliament raised any qualm about the American armed forces reducing Fallujah to ash and killing thousands of people. Yet, they go into the kind of emoting that we saw yesterday about the deaths in London.

I'm different from that, and most British people are different from that, when you reach them. The blood of everyone is worth the same. God didn't differentiate between a dead person in London killed by sheets of flying glass and red-hot razor sharp steel and someone who died the same death in Baghdad. These deaths are the same. And war of the kind that we have seen -- unjustified, illegal, based on lies, in Iraq, is terrorism of a different kind. Just because the President who ordered it is wearing a smart suit rather than the garb of an Islamist in the Tora Bora doesn't make their orders more legitimate than orders from bin Laden. "
 

boinktastik

dont reMember
Messages
414
Reaction score
0
spot on george.... again...... but your still a twat
 

Urk

Total Member
Messages
2,318
Reaction score
0
Location
It wasn me
I may have been blinkered, or just blown away by his US senate performance.

I keep having people telling me that I should consider GG a twat, but at the same time not offered any reasoning.

Why is he a twat ?
( serious question )
 

Continuum

Throb Farmer
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
328
Location
Straight outta muthaf***ing Surbiton
Urk said:
I may have been blinkered, or just blown away by his US senate performance.

I keep having people telling me that I should consider GG a twat, but at the same time not offered any reasoning.

Why is he a twat ?
( serious question )

Not sure. Beats me.
Maybe because he's rude, doesn't give a shit, and is always ready to criticise the government...er...which is all the more reason to applaud him I reckon.

???
 

boinktastik

dont reMember
Messages
414
Reaction score
0
Continuum said:
Not sure. Beats me.
Maybe because he's rude, doesn't give a shit, and is always ready to criticise the government...er...which is all the more reason to applaud him I reckon.

???

dont get me wrong............ he does have some admirable qualities

he is an excellant rhetoritian, sticks to his guns, says his mind , cutting through a lot of crap...... but beyond that he's all hot air and no substance.......... a champagne socialist who gets my goat.
 

Urk

Total Member
Messages
2,318
Reaction score
0
Location
It wasn me
Continuum said:
Not sure. Beats me.
Maybe because he's rude, doesn't give a shit, and is always ready to criticise the government...er...which is all the more reason to applaud him I reckon.

???

Pretty much my thoughts too.

Maybe is has something to do with the fact that he has been victimised and bullied like no other politician today, by the government, and by proxy the media.

Find me one ( mainstream ) news story where he is shown even the most basic respect, where he is not just referred to as " maverick " or " rebel " or some such, but as an accomplished politician.

Consider the medialens post on the subject ( below ), consider yet another blasting from Gavin Esler on news night the other night, after the disgusting way he was treated on May 6, I'm surprised he came on again....

I am going out on a limb here, and gonna suggest that there is very little about GG that puts him above any other in is profession, indeed he just seems a bit more honest to me.
It is however fashionable ( made so by the gov. and their puppet media ) to consider him to be dodgy, dangerous, even to present him as a traitor ( see the Saddam meetings ).

Maybe it depends where you get your news from.....
What gives ?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 10, 2005


MEDIA ALERT: AMBUSHING DISSENT - THE BBC’S JEREMY PAXMAN INTERVIEWS GEORGE GALLOWAY

"The 'societal purpose' of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state." (Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent)


Highly-paid presenters have privileged access to 'respectable' mainstream politicians which they are very keen to maintain. It is vital that such high-level sources not be seriously alienated or offended by pertinent, but potentially damaging, questions. Overlooking obvious truths about mass violence conducted by western governments, media professionals are expert at cultivating a veneer of dogged commitment to truth.

Even when being questioned sharply, leading politicians are treated respectfully with no insinuation that the interviewee is despicable or malevolent. No such considerations apply, however, when the media confront “rogues†or “mavericks†who represent a challenge to established power and the ideology underpinning its brutality. In these special cases, the doctrinal system requires that threatening figures be dealt with aggressively, typically with ridicule and contempt.

Thus, in the early hours of the morning after Britain's May 5 general election, viewers were treated to a remarkable exchange between the BBC's principal 'rottweiler', Jeremy Paxman, and George Galloway, the former Labour MP now with the anti-war Respect party. Galloway had just deposed the Blairite Labour MP, Oona King, in the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency of East London.

Galloway's victory was remarkable, overcoming a 10,000 majority in the face of the full might of New Labour’s political machine. His success surely reflects the extraordinary level of anti-war feeling in the country, two years after two million people marched in February 2003 - the largest political protest in UK history.

The BBC exchange began thus:

Jeremy Paxman: “Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?â€

George Galloway: “What a preposterous question. I know it's very late in the night, but wouldn't you be better starting by congratulating me for one of the most sensational election results in modern history?â€

JP: “Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?â€

GG: “I'm not [pause]. Jeremy, move on to your next question.â€

JP: “You're not answering that one?â€

GG: “No, because I don't believe that people get elected because of the colour of their skin. I believe people get elected because of their record and because of their policies. So move on to your next question.†(Broadcast BBC Election Night Special, 6 May, 2005; video and transcript available at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8763.htm)

Paxman's feigned concern for diversity actually rests on the racist and sexist assumption that candidates should be given special consideration on account of their colour or gender.

Moments later, Paxman said: "I put it to you Mr Galloway that [former local government minister] Nick Raynsford had you to a T when he said you were a 'demagogue'."

As far as we are aware, Paxman has never "put it" to any leading government minister that he or she is a "demagogue", despite an abundance of evidence that media-amplified propaganda and demagoguery enabled the war on Iraq, as well as earlier attacks on Afghanistan and Serbia. We look forward to Paxman suggesting to Tony Blair in a future interview: "I put it to you Mr Blair that George Galloway had you to a T when he said you were a 'war criminal'."

Perhaps other BBC presenters and journalists will also take up the cause of due impartiality. BBC political editor Andrew Marr will then confront Blair at his next press conference: "Are you proud to have won this election on the back of outrageous lies, and an invasion-occupation in violation of the UN Charter, as suggested even by your own advisors?"

BBC Radio 4 Today's John Humphrys will no doubt ask Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: "Are you proud to have won this election at the cost of 100,000 dead people in Iraq and countless hundreds of thousands of injured, malnourished and diseased civilians?"

His colleague James Naughtie will repeatedly press Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown: "Are you proud to have won this election after funding a war that was belatedly declared illegal by Kofi Annan and that has led to a major increase in terrorism?"


Expensively Dressed Loudmouth - The Media Go To Work

Over on ITN, European correspondent Juliet Bremner described how Galloway had secured victory with the use of “virulent anti-war views†- an interesting concept. (ITN 22:30 News, May 6, 2005)

Prior to the election (12:30 News, May 3), ITN had ambushed Galloway in a 6-minute interview ostensibly intended to allow the public to pose questions on Respect party policies. News anchors Nick Owen and Katie Derham began by asking about the “I salute you†comment Galloway is alleged to have made to Saddam Hussein in 1994. Anticipating Galloway’s rejection - he claims he was saluting the Iraqi people, not Saddam - ITN had a pre-prepared videotape on hand to show the clip in question.

Whereas establishment politicians are to be afforded appropriate courtesy and respect, the press find it almost impossible to mention Galloway’s name without employing adjectives like “controversial†and “maverickâ€. The consistent focus on personal foibles and alleged faults also contrasts starkly with coverage afforded to more ‘serious’ politicians.

Thus the Daily Mail noted “the expensively dressed political maverick's Respect Party snatched the seat which Labour has held since 1945 with a 26.2 per cent swingâ€. (‘Electrifying moments that lit up the small hours,’ Daily Mail, May 7, 2005)

The Express reported how “the maverick left-winger clashed with Paxmanâ€. (’Winner George loses it again,’ John Chapman and David Pilditch, Express, May 7, 2005)

The Sun noted in an article with the breath-takingly ironic title, ‘Maverick “Stirred up racism“:

“Loudmouth George Galloway was accused of stirring up racial tensions to scrape back into Parliament.†(The Sun, May 7, 2005)

The Times observed: “The latest chapter in the turbulent parliamentary career of George Galloway, newly elected MP for Bethnal Green & Bow, began yesterday in the maverick style that is his trademark. He stayed in bed.†(‘Galloway sleeps on his victory after an incendiary campaign,’ Sam Lister, Sean O'Neill and Giles Whittell, The Times, May 7, 2005)

The article concluded: “Asked what she thought of her new MP, one drinker in the Coborn Arms opposite Respect's headquarters said: ‘I want to move house.’"

The Guardian noted: “The most extraordinary result was secured by the maverick former Labour MP George Galloway…†(‘London delivers bloody nose as Galloway wins bitter fight, Hugh Muir, The Guardian, May 6, 2005)

Elsewhere, the media reflexively describe Galloway as “flamboyant†and “controversialâ€, descriptions which express proper ridicule and contempt for the “Rogue MPâ€. (The Sun, ‘Not a shred of remorse,’ Trevor Kavanagh, July 2, 2004)

The smears are repeated around the world. The Jerusalem Post notes:

"'This defeat is for Iraq. All the people you have killed, all the lies you have told have come back to haunt you,' declared maverick lawmaker George Galloway following his tight election victory... But Galloway's electoral success has been met with alarm and disdain across Britain." ('Galloway win causes alarm,' Yaakov Lappin, Jerusalem Post, May 8, 2005)

In fact, right across the spectrum, “rogue†thinkers, politicians and parties are relentlessly smeared and mocked by the elite media. The effect is as inevitable as it is intended - to persuade the public to revile and turn away from radical voices threatening established privilege and power.
 

Urk

Total Member
Messages
2,318
Reaction score
0
Location
It wasn me
boinktastik said:
he is an excellant rhetoritian, sticks to his guns, says his mind , cutting through a lot of crap...... but beyond that he's all hot air and no substance.......... a champagne socialist who gets my goat.

So nothing specific then?, and not much more than the othe poly-tics ?

Not jumping on you boinktastik as such, but as I say, I have heard the Galloway twat augment before, and it generally stops just after " that galloway is a twat, don't listen to him ..."
 

Continuum

Throb Farmer
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
328
Location
Straight outta muthaf***ing Surbiton
Its interesting that people on here ought to be the ones to challenge 'received wisdom' particularly that which originates with the govenment. Like the fact that Galloway is apparently a dangerous loony, which apparently goes unchallenged...
Weird.
 

Monkey Do

#1 Internet Toughguy
Messages
7,495
Reaction score
2
Location
I'm touching myself as I write this post.
So is there some conspiracy of "Galloways a twat" orchestrated to prevent people from hearing what he's actually saying or what?

My view is even if he is an idiot (I don't know enough about the bloke to take a view either way frankly - like most people it seems) that doesn't mean that what he's saying doesn't need to be said.
 

Urk

Total Member
Messages
2,318
Reaction score
0
Location
It wasn me
Continuum said:
Its interesting that people on here ought to be the ones to challenge 'received wisdom' particularly that which originates with the govenment. Like the fact that Galloway is apparently a dangerous loony, which apparently goes unchallenged...
Weird.

Exactly, and then the acts of violent war criminals ( Blair and Bush ) the acts of the realy dangerous loons, are presented as the moral high ground, and to question it opens oneself to ridicule, but then very few are even given the opportunity to air any critism in a way that is heard by the many, and when Gallowway does get on newnight, well we know how he will be treated....

Orwels coffin has had to be fitted with an air brake, he is turning so fast....
 

Barclay (Dark Angel)

Ninja Hippy
Messages
3,489
Reaction score
0
Location
Warwick
You know, in some small way he reminds me of Ken Livingstone, in that he's bucked the party system, appealed directly to the electorate, and won an election. In our 1st past the post system, that's incredibly difficult to do, even with the supposed advantage of a strong percentage of Muslims as part of the electorate.

I can remember Blair calling Livingstone dangerous too.

You make a good point Urk, and like you, I'm NOT getting at Boinktastik who says he's all hot air, and no substance. Why? And what evidence is there that he's a "champagne" socialist? Hey, Fidel Castro smokes a cigar too! I reckon with the media out for his blood, they'd have uncovered anything that could discredit him by now. In fact the Telegraph tried to do exactly that, and lost a libel case as a consequence.

The thing I find unfortunate about GG is that he can lose it under pressure. (I saw him do it with that neo Nazi Anne Leslie (sp?) on Question Time a while back.) When he does that, he loses the argument, which is a pity 'cos to my mind he's able to talk a lot of sense.

Hugs,

Barclay
 

boinktastik

dont reMember
Messages
414
Reaction score
0
Urk said:
So nothing specific then?, and not much more than the othe poly-tics ?

Not jumping on you boinktastik as such, but as I say, I have heard the Galloway twat augment before, and it generally stops just after " that galloway is a twat, don't listen to him ..."

No worries mate I'm always up for a debate and I like my opinions to be questioned as it tends to straighten them out!

I'd like to point out that im not on the "galloway is a twat, don't listent to him" boat...... if you look at my first post on this thread I said "spot on george..... again..... but your still a twat"

I listen to what he has to say........ its always very entertaining and he makes a lot of valid points, however I dont like him. I'm sure that my opinion may be partially down to the way he is portreyed in the media but when I cut through their bias and motives I still find a character which I dislike....... perhaps i'm not looking hard enough but I dont have to like a character in order to agree with them.
 

Vanilla Penguin

V.P Psy comes to Dorset
Messages
737
Reaction score
0
Location
Dorchester (Dorset)
George Galloway's defence in the U.S senate... did you see the way he had some of the most senior men in the U.S. squirming there.
 

laura_

Junior Members
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Location
bradford
boinktastik said:
a champagne socialist
to be fair he isn't a socialist at all. he's a weak minded liberal. respect is a liberal-based party. the only terms i'd call them left wing, was under the same terms that i'd call the guardian left wing.
respect's policies have no relevence to class struggle, or even class consciousness. under capitalism all parties will fall back to a conservative ideology, such as new labour have done. this shows precisely what the SWP think about revolution, or indeed socialism, seen as they have backed respect from the beginning. in the end they're all talk.
 
Top