# Galloway..good or bad?



## protesticals (Jul 9, 2013)

I have mixed feelings about Gorgeous George.

Good:  That US senate episode, won't accept antisemitism, knows the difference between fash and right populists like farage and defends the democratic right of such people.Rejects Scots nationalism. The Pussy cat thing.

Bad: That Saddam thing, Working for the Iranian governments propaganda arm, fellow traveller of extreme right wing Bangladeshi groups.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 9, 2013)

you forgot the rape apologism.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 9, 2013)

Galloway is easily the most gifted orator around and a very talented politician. He'd be close enough to heroic if he didn't fuck up those times he has done .  .  I mean, it's like he train-wrecks on purpose, sometimes.

His defense of Julian Assange was very admirable till he published the video alluded to above. Wrong. And it did Assange no favours (or G himself or his party).

The Oxford debate storming out was pretty stupid.

I'm not sure what to make of the MI5 stuff from some months back. God knows what goes on but I think Galloway behaves strangely for someone worried about that sort of thing.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 9, 2013)

He can bust a move too


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

hes a lot more good than bad, As regards fuck ups well hes a politician . His BB stint among those freaks was inane in my view, big blunder that will continually leave him open to ridicule . However more often than not he makes some very good points.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 9, 2013)

Shit of the first order. Next.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 9, 2013)

pro-Islamist Leftist


----------



## Yata (Jul 9, 2013)

jimmy saville was in the same BB for a bit for a task and galloway said something like "theres stuff about him that wont come out till after hes dead". maybe he was just speculating based on rumours but overall theres something about him not quite right. the way he fawned over him in there was kinda weird too, regardless of who it was. i mean theres having idols and then theres being a professional beta male.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jul 9, 2013)

Untrustworthy, self seeking opportunist.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

he's horrible.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2013)

grubby sectariian politics player, rape apologist. I think his commitment to the palestinian cause is 100% genuine but in some ways you have to think 'with friends like that...'


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

his "i don't debate with israelis" was not his finest hour


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 9, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> 'with friends like that...'


 
Who needs enemas?


----------



## likesfish (Jul 9, 2013)

Ideal to poke people with the US senate really deserved that pity he didnt do the same in the house of commons.
  but you wouldnt trust him with anything.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 9, 2013)

Like many utterly unprincipled opportunists Galloway is a man who has used his undoubted ability to turn a glib phrase  to "commodify" a set of opportunistically assumed political positions (in this case Leftish ones - but he could just have well have assumed a set of fascist ones in an era where this was a more  "sellable commodity") to make a VERY nice lifelong living for himself - villa in Spain included.

Anyone who takes a long , hard  , look at Galloway's odious  "career", from accusations of his prostitute-purchasing use of his expense account whilst running War on Want, to his grovelling to Saddam, and other Middle Eastern tyrants, to his extraordinarily cynical , and frankly toe-curling, "colonial commissioner style " patronising of his Muslim electoral base - with all that cod "the Prophet be praised" posturing, and his recent dodgy  "rape" comments, and comes away still thinking this ghastly man has an ounce of genuine belief (beyond in his own self-interest), is a very gullible person indeed. 

 Owen Jones is another utter opportunist arriviste in the Galloway mould, building a personally very remunerative career from cynically "commodifying"  profoundly standard  Lefty position posturing - as an always available for predictable  comments ,cardboard cutout "Leftie Spokesperson"  for the capitalist mass media to use to front up bogus "debates". How so many Lefties still "give the benefit of doubt" to creatures like Galloway, and Jones,  is hard to credit to me - but then so many "on the Left" thought Stalin was OK for a long time too  - and still seem to think Gaddafi was some sort of genuine "anti imperialist" on the basis of a bit of posturing and rhetoric ! The conclusion can only be that for people supposedly determined to see through "capitalist ideology" too many of us on the Left are actually as gullible, and prone to "personality worship"  as the typical Daily Mail reader - its just that the bullshit we too often consume has a different "flavour".


----------



## Bun (Jul 9, 2013)

Bombastic chancer.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2013)

He did take the effort to outline in brief why he thinks that though.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> but then so many "on the Left" thought Stalin was OK for a long time too - and still seem to think Gaddafi was some sort of genuine "anti imperialist" on the basis of a bit of posturing and rhetoric ! The conclusion can only be that for people supposedly determined to see through "capitalist ideology" too many of us on the Left are actually as gullible, and prone to "personality worship" as the typical Daily Mail reader - its just that the bullshit we too often consume has a different "flavour".


 
just out of interest do you also believe libya was sanctioned for decades and various murder plots conceived and attempted on him by the west,his children killed, with the man ultimately bombed and murdered on the basis of a _bit of rhetoric_

I find that quite difficult to believe . In fact Id take the view that from the early 70s to the 90s he rendered more physical assistance to anti imperialist causes than the entire west european left combined . Which admittedly wouldnt be hard . But from soweto to Ireland his active assistance was very much felt on the ground and deeply appreciated by many people . Recognition of that isnt blind hero worship .

And as regards Galloway and his multiple faults , his is the British voice that stands out loudest against the Iraq war. He was the one who had to go and defend himself from lies in the whitehouse because quite frankly there wasnt anyone else on the entire British left worth smearing .

So my view would be that yes, such people have both personal and political faults that cant be simply overlooked. But at the same time I dont believe they can be dismissed so glibly and flatly by those who have made zero impact on any of the same causes and who dont have any discernible strategy to ever do so that Im aware of.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Ideal to poke people with the US senate really deserved that pity he didnt do the same in the house of commons.
> but you wouldnt trust him with anything.


 
id agree, his ego does seem to be an overriding factor . But his performance in the united states was an historical moment in my opinion .


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 9, 2013)

http://redstarcommando.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/why-george-galloway-is-lying-bastard.html


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 9, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Like many utterly unprincipled opportunists Galloway is a man who has used his undoubted ability to turn a glib phrase to "commodify" a set of opportunistically assumed political positions (in this case Leftish ones - but he could just have well have assumed a set of fascist ones in an era where this was a more "sellable commodity") to make a VERY nice lifelong living for himself - villa in Spain included.
> 
> Anyone who takes a long , hard , look at Galloway's odious "career", from accusations of his prostitute-purchasing use of his expense account whilst running War on Want, to his grovelling to Saddam, and other Middle Eastern tyrants, to his extraordinarily cynical , and frankly toe-curling, "colonial commissioner style " patronising of his Muslim electoral base - with all that cod "the Prophet be praised" posturing, and his recent dodgy "rape" comments, and comes away still thinking this ghastly man has an ounce of genuine belief (beyond in his own self-interest), is a very gullible person indeed.
> 
> Owen Jones is another utter opportunist arriviste in the Galloway mould, building a personally very remunerative career from cynically "commodifying" profoundly standard Lefty position posturing - as an always available for predictable comments ,cardboard cutout "Leftie Spokesperson" for the capitalist mass media to use to front up bogus "debates". How so many Lefties still "give the benefit of doubt" to creatures like Galloway, and Jones, is hard to credit to me - but then so many "on the Left" thought Stalin was OK for a long time too - and still seem to think Gaddafi was some sort of genuine "anti imperialist" on the basis of a bit of posturing and rhetoric ! The conclusion can only be that for people supposedly determined to see through "capitalist ideology" too many of us on the Left are actually as gullible, and prone to "personality worship" as the typical Daily Mail reader - its just that the bullshit we too often consume has a different "flavour".


 
The comparison is grotesquely unfair to Jones, who is a perfectly nice young lad trying to make a living as a commentator, and has no track record of cosying up to tyrants with a view to personal profit.


----------



## Tom A (Jul 9, 2013)

Bad. For all of the above. Next!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 9, 2013)

i salute his indefatigability


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2013)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Galloway is easily the most gifted orator around and a very talented politician.


 
Where's the basis for this? I think his "gifts" as an orator are vastly overstated, cheap unprincipled demagogue is perhaps a better description. And that's being charitable.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> The comparison is grotesquely unfair to Jones, who is a perfectly nice young lad trying to make a living as a commentator, and has no track record of cosying up to tyrants with a view to personal profit.


 
whats your opinion on those who elected him with quite an astounding majority . The bookies had him at 200 to one to win it .


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> whats your opinion on those who elected him with quite an astounding majority . .


 
Not very positive. But I've never come across an electorate that I much liked.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> whats your opinion on those who elected him with quite an astounding majority . The bookies had him at 200 to one to win it .


 
Fucks sake you're sticking up for Galloway here now? Jesus christ even by your standards this is a new low.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

I asked a perfectly legitimate question . Plainly you dont wish to address it and find it unwelcome, which i thinks a bit odd . I also thought i made it perfectly clear I have mixed feelings about him .


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jul 9, 2013)

George Galloway is primarily concerned with the promotion of George Galloway, no matter how convincing and emotive his rhetoric is.

In Paul Keating's words (describing someone else), Galloway is a shiver looking for a spine to run up.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jul 9, 2013)

He has a turn of phrase alright but Galloway is out look after Galloway


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

i find it hard to take this very imbalanced analysis all that seriously . The guy won an election with 56 percent of the vote in an 8 candidate race in an area hes not even from . Absolutely nobody outside respect saw that coming, Ladbrokes had him at 200 to one . Plainly hes doing something right otherwise he wouldnt have that appeal .
Id be interested in hearing an actual analysis of that as opposed to the usual lefty sectarian sour grapes, which seems to amount to _cunt cunt cunt_..dont be asking questions.._cunt cunt cunt_

If its the case that people just dont know why that happened fair enough, neither do I . But its very apparent theres a lot of people out there who dont think hes a total cunt, who want him to represent them, and there must be some reasons for that and why they dont opt for others on the left .


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 9, 2013)

protesticals said:


> I have mixed feelings about Gorgeous George.
> 
> Good: That US senate episode, won't accept antisemitism, knows the difference between fash and right populists like farage and defends the democratic right of such people.Rejects Scots nationalism. The Pussy cat thing.
> 
> Bad: That Saddam thing, Working for the Iranian governments propaganda arm, fellow traveller of extreme right wing Bangladeshi groups.


 
Galloway is a beautiful part of Scotland.

George Galloway is a self-serving odious cunt.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I asked a perfectly legitimate question . Plainly you dont wish to address it and find it unwelcome, which i thinks a bit odd .


 
What do you think of the people of Sedgefield, County Durham, who elected Tony Blair by massive majorities every single time he stood? Would you accept that as a mealy-mouthed defense of Blair's politics? Of course you wouldn't.

I think you're actually clueless about how Galloway operates. If you did have even the slightest knowledge of his behaviour you'd be thinking twice about backing him up here. No socialist should be seen dead advocating for this turgid little wretch.

My opinion on the people who voted for him is ambivalent, given the choices on offer in our system it's hardly surprising that a half-charismatic demagogue who can say the right things in the most cynical huckster-ish kind of way can get elected as a mid-term by-election protest vote. Also worth remembeing that the although constituency he ran in has a large Pakistani muslim base, it's a majority white British seat, with about a 2:1 white/asian ratio iirc (and I really don't like even having to make it an issue of demographics coz there's more at work here than just that.) In the asian community he ran as the Real Muslim candidate, winner of such-and-such a medal from Pakistan - "God knows who is a Muslim" was the exact phrase he used in his election campaign. In the white, working class area's he ran as Old Labour George, proper Labour, good catholic lad, likes a pint etc etc. This is a man with absolutely fuck all principle beyond immediate self-promotion.

What happened in Bradford was that the election agent and Labour party campaigning bigwig who was running the Labour campaign switched sides and starting working for Galloway instead. There's a long established system of vote collecting in muslim communities, based on family and religious authority figures, known as "bindari" system. He referred to it as "Village politics" in his acceptance speech (something that must've made the people in Tower Hamlets piss themselves laughing since Galloway's skillful manipulation of this kind of system is what got him his seat in Bethnal Green and Bow back in 2005.) Much of his success in the asian community, other than the pandering to Islamic sentiment (a game that Labour play too btw) came as a protest vote against this bindari system. He set himself up as the "anti-bindari" candidate, and won the support of a lot of disaffected pakistani voters who feel that the Labour party takes their votes for granted, especially the votes of Pakistani women who are often overlooked within this Bindari system. He also won the votes off the Labour party quite easily, in Clayton for example (an overwhelmingly white ward in Bradford) Respect/Galloway won 900 votes compared to Labour's 40. This is right in the middle of Labour's heartland too. Just as the Pakistani community feels Labour takes their votes for granted, the white working class community too feels the same way, and once given a half-credible alternative will vote for it in droves.

I base my opinions of the people of Bradford based on the fact I know the town quite well, I have roots there, and I have a decent understanding how the Labour party operates in these areas as I'm an ex Labour member. I speak from a position of (small) experience, you speak in his defense from a position of profound ignorance.

The day after he got elected during his election speech he went up and thanked "the people of Blackburn" for their support. This fucker couldn't even be arsed remembering the town's name that he just got elected for. That's how cynical he is. He's a fucking locust. My opinion on those who elected him is one thing, but the contempt Galloway himself has shown for the people who elected him is outrageous. He's fucking hated in Bradford now.



Casually Red said:


> I also thought i made it perfectly clear I have mixed feelings about him .


 
Oh you made yourself clear alright. Let's have another look shall we?



Casually Red said:


> hes a lot more good than bad


 
No, he really isn't, if you're a British socialist Galloway's a liability and someone who does very real damage to the left in this country. He should be dis-owned by any and all of us. We could list all the shit he's done on this thread if you like, but y'know what there's probably a few dozen or so threads already dedicated to this weasel, you should do a few searches.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

[quote="Delroy Booth, post: 12385965, member:


> In the asian community he ran as the Real Muslim candidate, winner of such-and-such a medal from Pakistan - "God knows who is a Muslim" was the exact phrase he used in his election campaign.


 
right, and wasnt this his response to the Labour candidates announcement that people should vote for him, under the Bindari system youve outlined ,because he was a muslim of pakistani origin ? With Labour playing the race and religion card from the outset and Galloway pointing out a hypocrite who was constantly in and out of pubs and casinos, unlike himself . Whats wrong with pointing out your opponent is a hypocrite playing the race and religion card ?

And I find the notion that he could even attempt to pass himself off as a pakistani as somewhat risible.



> In the white, working class area's he ran as Old Labour George, proper Labour, good catholic lad, likes a pint etc etc. This is a man with absolutely fuck all principle beyond immediate self-promotion.


 

hold on a minute..George Galloway is firmly on the record that not only does he never drink neither did his father so I find that likes a pint business very difficult to believe . All youve actually outlined there is a politician highlighting some issues and backgrounds he has in common with his constituents. Part of getting elected is actually promoting yourself to your voters as having something in common with them . Im sorry but i dont regard this particular criticism as at all valid.



> What happened in Bradford was that the election agent and Labour party campaigning bigwig who was running the Labour campaign switched sides and starting working for Galloway instead. There's a long established system of vote collecting in muslim communities, based on family and religious authority figures, known as "bindari" system. He referred to it as "Village politics" in his acceptance speech (something that must've made the people in Tower Hamlets piss themselves laughing since Galloway's skillful manipulation of this kind of system is what got him his seat in Bethnal Green and Bow back in 2005.) Much of his success in the asian community, other than the pandering to Islamic sentiment (a game that Labour play too btw) came as a protest vote against this bindari system. He set himself up as the "anti-bindari" candidate, and won the support of a lot of disaffected pakistani voters who feel that the Labour party takes their votes for granted, especially the votes of Pakistani women who are often overlooked within this Bindari system. He also won the votes off the Labour party quite easily, in Clayton for example (an overwhelmingly white ward in Bradford)


 
so he successfully undermined an undemocratic voting system based on medievalist patriarchy ? and thats a bad thing how ?



> Much of his success in the asian community, other than the pandering to Islamic sentiment


 
but didnt he vote for the lowering of the homosexual age of consent, gay marriage etc and doesnt Respect have a clear position on LGBT rights in its manifesto also ? Hows that pandering to islamism ? Id say its a political position very much at odds with islamism.



> Respect/Galloway won 900 votes compared to Labour's 40. This is right in the middle of Labour's heartland too. Just as the Pakistani community feels Labour takes their votes for granted, the white working class community too feels the same way, and once given a half-credible alternative will vote for it in droves..


 

the question ive been trying to get an answer to is why _proper socialists_ clearly arent providing that alternative on the left . It seems to me that a lot of the hatred directed against him from the left is because they simply arent seen as a half credible option and Galloway is.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2013)

^ profound ignorance and mealy-mouthed apologism for one of the worst, most discredited, opportunist snakes ever to grace British politics. Too stupid to even respond to.

Why not go and announce your full support for Martin Smith and the SWP whilst you're at it.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> ^ profound ignorance and mealy-mouthed apologism for one of the worst, most discredited, opportunist snakes ever to grace British politics. Too stupid to even respond to..


 
if what i posted was factually incorrect then fair enough. I dont think it was though . And as far as Im aware anyone who ever tried discreditting him, and they certainly tried, got their asses handed to them in various libel cases.
I also feel that he was the only MP in the labour party that had the courage of his convictions to one hundred percent oppose the Iraq invasion and to back that up to the point of his expulsion without regard to his political career. That doesnt strike me as opportunist, however im quite sure he has engaged in other opportunism.
Your critique simply doesnt strike me as balanced or factual, more personal, which is why its hard for me to take wholly seriously .


----------



## Firky (Jul 9, 2013)

A fucking worm.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

He has possibly done more damage to the idea of a progressive working class political movement in recent years than any well known political figure in this country.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> He has possibly done more damage to the idea of a progressive working class political movement in recent years than any well known political figure in this country.


 
Damage that continues to take place too. See the potential closing of Bradford national media museum, something that will hurt the city deeply, an issue around which a good left populist MP in the Victor Grayson mould ought to be building a mass campaign around. Galloway however is far more interested in his numerous TV, radio and journalistic projects than to participate in grassroots campaigning around this issue. Infact according to some anarchist comrades I'm friends with who do a lot of stuff in Bradford, anti-cuts campaigning has become harder in the City since he was elected. Getting people's hopes up and letting them down so blatantly has that affect it seems. He was exactly the same with the campaign to save Bradford Odeon, he campaigned around it during his by-election, but once he got elected he swiftly forgot about it. The man couldn't give a a fuck about his constituents, and people in Bradford/Blackburn/Allthesame know it.

And Casually Red, I'm not wasting my time arguing with you over this. It's tedious pointless and no matter what you'll still emerge with your tongue firmly lodged up Galloways' backside, the same way you'll back any scumbag to the hilt if they invoke a bit of crude anti-imperialism.

Anyway here's Galloway meeting with mass rapist and psychopathic serial killer Uday Hussein.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> He has possibly done more damage to the idea of a progressive working class political movement in recent years than any well known political figure in this country.


 
im sorry, while I usually respect and admire your viewpoint, and am sure  I will in future,  I cant accept that one man is responsible for the failure of that political project . That can only be the collective responsibility of the left itself and it cannot remotely be GGs fault they simply havent got their act together sufficiently .
What I definitely do pick up among a lot of this criticism is a deep annoyance on the left that Galloway is capitalising politically on the very issues and in the very constituencies they feel they should be. However its definitely not his fault they arent. That failure lies a lot closer to home in my view, and in such circumstances scapegoating can be an attractive option .


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 9, 2013)

"Labour MP George Galloway … said … “these lunatics, anarchists and other extremists, principally from the Socialist Workers’ party, were out for a rumble the whole time, and now they’ve got it. If they didn’t exist, the Tories would need to invent them.”
Sunday Times 1 April 1990


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im sorry, while I usually respect and admire your viewpoint, and am sure I will in future, I cant accept that one man is responsible for the failure of that political project . That can only be the collective responsibility of the left itself and it cannot remotely be GGs fault they simply havent got their act together sufficiently .
> What I definitely do pick up among a lot of this criticism is a deep annoyance on the left that Galloway is capitalising politically on the very issues and in the very constituencies they feel they should be. However its definitely not his fault they arent. That failure lies a lot closer to home in my view, and in such circumstances scapegoating can be an attractive option .


 

I don't think that he is solely responsible for it, but he does have a huge amount of responsibility. When people think of the worst hypocritical excesses of the left people like him is frequently what they think of. Sucking up to islamists and stalinist regimes, using his left wing credentials to apologise for the most disgusting shit and to act as a champagne socialist with tv appearances and publicity and seldom do anything for the people he was elected for.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 9, 2013)

19sixtysix said:


> Untrustworthy, self seeking opportunist.


 

Yeah so different from many other politicians that.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im sorry, while I usually respect and admire your viewpoint, and am sure I will in future, I cant accept that one man is responsible for the failure of that political project . That can only be the collective responsibility of the left itself and it cannot remotely be GGs fault they simply havent got their act together sufficiently .
> What I definitely do pick up among a lot of this criticism is a deep annoyance on the left that Galloway is capitalising politically on the very issues and in the very constituencies they feel they should be. However its definitely not his fault they arent. That failure lies a lot closer to home in my view, and in such circumstances scapegoating can be an attractive option .


 

Galloway's contribution to the discussion about rape last year was truly appalling and for that alone he deserves contempt.
He has been consistent in his anti war stance but he treats most things like an opportunity for self promotion.
I loved him standing up to the US senators but he a version of sheridan imo.
Personally I don't trust him and think he'd make deals behind our backs...he is like a trade union leader...talks the talk but lines his own nest at every opportunity


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

his fucking "I don't debate with Israelis" shit, his anti-abortion/rape apologist shit, the clash of egos between him and the SWP in respect and the fucking up the anti-war movement, the fact that he is more interested in swanning about with Islamists than attending parliamentary debates (i think in bethnal green he attended about four the whole time) even if you support reformist electoral politics at least try and make yourself useful while you're there rather than grandstanding and not doing anything about the people you're supposed to represent.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im sorry, while I usually respect and admire your viewpoint, and am sure I will in future, I cant accept that one man is responsible for the failure of that political project . That can only be the collective responsibility of the left itself and it cannot remotely be GGs fault they simply havent got their act together sufficiently .
> What I definitely do pick up among a lot of this criticism is a deep annoyance on the left that Galloway is capitalising politically on the very issues and in the very constituencies they feel they should be. However its definitely not his fault they arent. That failure lies a lot closer to home in my view, and in such circumstances scapegoating can be an attractive option .


 

What do you think about delroy's points about his behaviour and the undermining of anti-cuts movements in bradford after the election? 

"god knows who is a muslim" 

ugh.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What happened in Bradford was that the election agent and Labour party campaigning bigwig who was running the Labour campaign switched sides and starting working for Galloway instead. There's a long established system of vote collecting in muslim communities, based on family and religious authority figures, known as "bindari" system. He referred to it as "Village politics" in his acceptance speech (something that must've made the people in Tower Hamlets piss themselves laughing since Galloway's skillful manipulation of this kind of system is what got him his seat in Bethnal Green and Bow back in 2005.) Much of his success in the asian community, other than the pandering to Islamic sentiment (a game that Labour play too btw) came as a protest vote against this bindari system. He set himself up as the "anti-bindari" candidate, and won the support of a lot of disaffected pakistani voters who feel that the Labour party takes their votes for granted, especially the votes of Pakistani women who are often overlooked within this Bindari system. He also won the votes off the Labour party quite easily, in Clayton for example (an overwhelmingly white ward in Bradford) Respect/Galloway won 900 votes compared to Labour's 40. This is right in the middle of Labour's heartland too. Just as the Pakistani community feels Labour takes their votes for granted, the white working class community too feels the same way, and once given a half-credible alternative will vote for it in droves.


 
I think that another significant factor was that Galloway was the first politician in the area to treat south Asian women as equals in a long while. During electoral campaigns even white non-Muslim Labour MPs and canvassers in Bradford would ask grown women who came to the door whether their husband or father was in whereas Respect canvassers spoke directly to women. An absolutely appalling situation. I cannot stand Galloway and I think that he is even worse in person than his slimey media persona but if any good came out of his electoral victory in Bradford West then it was showing up decades of Labour disrespect towards women in certain areas of the country.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What do you think about delroy's points about his behaviour and the undermining of anti-cuts movements in bradford after the election?
> 
> "god knows who is a muslim"
> 
> ugh.


 
im sorry, my piece of shit computer has been acting up badly and i have to keep logging out.

While im not from Bradford from what i can see I dont think delroys points about the museum are actually valid. And as he admits himself based on hearsay from a couple of anarchist mates.
It doesnt seem to stack up with this.

http://www.publications.parliament....m130619/debtext/130619-0004.htm#1306203002255


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think that he is solely responsible for it, but he does have a huge amount of responsibility. When people think of the worst hypocritical excesses of the left people like him is frequently what they think of. Sucking up to islamists and stalinist regimes, using his left wing credentials to apologise for the most disgusting shit and to act as a champagne socialist with tv appearances and publicity and seldom do anything for the people he was elected for.


 
im sorry i refuse to accept that point . One which sadly does not admit to, much less address, any failings on the wider left spectrum of the UK .


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im sorry i refuse to accept that point . One which sadly does not admit to, much less address, any failings on the wider left spectrum of the UK .


 

the failings on the left have been dsicussed/admitted to pretty endlessly on here ...


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I think that another significant factor was that Galloway was the first politician in the area to treat south Asian women as equals in a long while. During electoral campaigns even white non-Muslim Labour MPs and canvassers in Bradford would ask grown women who came to the door whether their husband or father was in whereas Respect canvassers spoke directly to women. An absolutely appalling situation. I cannot stand Galloway and I think that he is even worse in person than his slimey media persona but if any good came out of his electoral victory in Bradford West then it was showing up decades of Labour disrespect towards women in certain areas of the country.


 
Surely whats more good is a form of backward patriarchal gerrymandering has been busted open and a way ahead for other leftists has been signposted.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 9, 2013)

which, logically, should be a good thing for a progressive working class political movement in Britain. If they choose to follow that particular example of addressing a rather obvious disempowerment.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

Just a shame about the Jamaat allies coming out against women who disagree with them with sexist insults, the sub-Inverdale degrading of women in his Sunday columns ("For a singer she's always been not a bad looker. I voted with the majority for a change when her rear was the year's champion sight. I even bought my woman Kylie's range of underwear"), the defence of rape (regardless of any position about a rapist) as "bad sexual etiquette".


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Just a shame about the Jamaat allies coming out against women who disagree with them with sexist insults, the sub-Inverdale degrading of women in his Sunday columns ("For a singer she's always been not a bad looker. I voted with the majority for a change when her rear was the year's champion sight. I even bought my woman Kylie's range of underwear"), the defence of rape (regardless of any position about a rapist) as "bad sexual etiquette".


 

Agreed 100%, no one should think that Galloway had Respect canvassers speak to women in their own homes because he has any regard for women but what does it say about the Labour party that a man who is so obviously a misogynist out flanked them on something so basic as treating women as equals?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> which, logically, should be a good thing for a progressive working class political movement in Britain. If they choose to follow that particular example of addressing a rather obvious disempowerment.


 

George Galloway isn't going to address that rather obvious disempowerment. He's not interested. He's not a hard working constituency MP who gets stuck into loads of campaigns and uses his profile to build new political organisations, he's a parasite. Don't get your hopes up for any of that. All his election shows is there's a lot of dis-illusionment with the main political parties, who can't motivate their voters to turn out at anything but a general election, and that with a bit of z-list big brother celebrity and the slightest whiff of charisma, you can get people elected into parliament.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Agreed 100%, no one should think that Galloway had Respect canvassers speak to women in their own homes because he has any regard for women but what does it say about the Labour party that a man who is so obviously a misogynist out flanked them on something so basic as treating women as equals?


 
It used a (increasingly out of date, ossified) system of the block neo-feudal "ethnic vote",  established somewhere in the mid 1970s, adressing concerns in terms of 'Kashmiris in Britain' rather than as members of a working-class robbed of their rights and the value of the labour.

Why would anyone expect anything different from a Socialist International party like Labour?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It used a (increasingly out of date, ossified) system of the block neo-feudal "ethnic vote", established somewhere in the mid 1970s, adressing concerns in terms of 'Kashmiris in Britain' rather than as members of a working-class robbed of their rights and the value of the labour.
> 
> Why would anyone expect anything different from a Socialist International party like Labour?


 

Sounds familiar ... where's your intersectionalist analysis Sihhi?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Surely whats more good is a form of backward patriarchal gerrymandering has been busted open and a way ahead for other leftists has been signposted.


 
Do you really think George Galloway is a passionate advocate against "patriachical gerrymandering" that goes on in some parts of the muslim community. Do you think this man is above using that sort of thing to boost his own career when it suits him? Honestly.

Yes it is good this sort of thing was exposed. Also this issue could become bigger than trade union gerrymandering if Tories decide to make it a big story. There's 14 Labour party constituency parties in special measures right now, which came out off the back of this Falkirk/Unite bullshit, but a fair few of those are area's with high muslim populations where there's been all sorts of shit going on for years in terms of funding and candidate selections. It would seem like the next place to go if you were trying to attack Labour's funding in the run-up to the general election.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Sounds familiar ... where's your intersectionalist analysis Sihhi?


 
Sorry yes the Socialist International was set up with people from Guyana and Uruguay, so shouldn't have mud thrown at it. George Galloway worked in a factory and had a Palestinian wife for a long time (Laurie Penny's grandmother was Jewish and at the mercy of East End charity, Aaron Peters's dad was a kebab shop worker, Terry Christian's dad was a militant T&G rep etc etc... ) Pick and choose your identity as love detective says.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 9, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> The comparison is grotesquely unfair to Jones, who is a perfectly nice young lad trying to make a living as a commentator, and has no track record of cosying up to tyrants with a view to personal profit.


 
Fuck right off, that's exactly what jones is up to.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 9, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im sorry, my piece of shit computer has been acting up badly and i have to keep logging out.
> 
> While im not from Bradford from what i can see I dont think delroys points about the museum are actually valid. And as he admits himself based on hearsay from a couple of anarchist mates.
> It doesnt seem to stack up with this.
> ...


 
That's just an opinion, so fair enough. And I would argue that despite what he's saying in parliament (then few times he can be arsed to turn up - he's consistently one of the laziest MP's in parliament) that he's a dis-interested and distant local MP.

That thing you linked, have you read it?



> *George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect):* I am relieved, up to a point, that I do not have to come to the House this evening to savage the Minister as an enemy of the people, or to denounce him as a philistine and cultural vandal. I am relieved because I have always considered him rather an adornment to the Government of brutes with whom he sits—a civilised man;* a kind of lipstick on the pig.*


 
Lovely turn of phrase. Rest is rambling shit. The Museum is still not safe either, there's a shitload more cuts forecast it'll be a miracle if it survives past 2015. He played no significant role in campaigns he's plugging, in fact probably hindered them by reputation.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2013)

He told Rees to fuck off, so deserves some Brownie points for that. He's a politician and most of them are Machiavellian. It's fundamental to the game. He wins elections too, which is no mean feat, particularly when all and sundry are out to get him, yet nobody has. I think the villa is in Portugal and not Spain?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 10, 2013)

I won't bother going through all the specifics of his opportunism, Delroy Booth says it all better (and with more local knowledge) than I could. Only thing I'd add is I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to left/radical/anarcho politics of any kind. Call it prefigurative politics if you like, or just the idea that you should be part of a community of equals in the way you do your politics. His big man behaviour, his permanent self promotion, his macho shite, is utterly at odds with that. Suspect some will disagree, they might think there's a role for the 'charismatic' politico. In fact conventional politics sees those as entirely positive traits. I agree with frogwoman though, he is utterly destructive - not just because of the positions he takes, but also because of his 'star quality'. It's a shit way of doing politics.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

Wilf said:


> His big man behaviour, his permanent self promotion, his macho shite, is utterly at odds with that. Suspect some will disagree, they might think there's a role for the 'charismatic' politico. In fact conventional politics sees those as entirely positive traits. I agree with frogwoman though, he is utterly destructive - not just because of the positions he takes, but also because of his 'star quality'. It's a shit way of doing politics.


 
it worked for Hugo Chavez . And as Galloway seems to have a habit of winning quite stunning victories in solid and safe Labour seats it appears to work for him . Ive no problem with a charismatic and macho personality providing its ultimately subject to internal democracy.
The fact is hes turned Labour over twice, despite massive  odds, so plainly many of the public dont regard him as the repellent individual some claim is responsible for tainting left politics in the eyes of the public. That doesnt stack up as an accusation in my view. Hes also lifted an absolute fortune from reactionary cunts whove repeatedly libelled him and spied on him .
So in my view hes not all bad , hes doing something right.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> with a bit of z-list big brother celebrity and the slightest whiff of charisma, you can get people elected into parliament.


 
are you seriously admitting now that the alternative left have less collective charisma than jedward ?



Ill not contradict you on this one


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> ("For a singer she's always been not a bad looker. I voted with the majority for a change when her rear was the year's champion sight. I even bought my woman Kylie's range of underwear").


 
this may be news to you but Kylie Minogue does actually have a very nice arse indeed . And GG, or any man for that matter, has a perfect right to buy his partner some nice lingerie .


----------



## sihhi (Jul 10, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> this may be news to you but Kylie Minogue does actually have a very nice arse indeed . And GG, or any man for that matter, has a perfect right to buy his partner some nice lingerie .


 
Please stop.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 10, 2013)

CR, you're making me sick in my own mouth a bit. please stop it.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

what the fuck did i do now..she won competitions with it


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 10, 2013)

oh god. was it you that thought that all women were overreacting at gg's 'sexual etiquette' gaffe, and then tried to tell urban that fucking people while they're asleep is a god-given right, and anyone who disagrees is a shrill, hysterical humourless?
or am i confusing you with a different poster


----------



## emanymton (Jul 10, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> oh god. was it you that thought that all women were overreacting at gg's 'sexual etiquette' gaffe, and then tried to tell urban that fucking people while they're asleep is a god-given right, and anyone who disagrees is a shrill, hysterical humourless?
> or am i confusing you with a different poster


I think that was Revol68, but I might be wrong.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> oh god. was it you that thought that all women were overreacting at gg's 'sexual etiquette' gaffe, and then tried to tell urban that fucking people while they're asleep is a god-given right, and anyone who disagrees is a shrill, hysterical humourless?
> or am i confusing you with a different poster


 
god given right for fucks sake ...I said no such thing. Why are you making that shite up ? Thats invention..not confusion . And _all women_ ..CATCH A GRIP
There was a poster who openly admitted regularly doing it with his wife for years , but none of you denounced him as a rapist. Or gave him any shite at all for that matter, which i noted as quite hypocritical . Unlike myself who never has, but pointed out on a number of occasions ive been awoken by a female partner doing stuff to me in my sleep . And despite being the apparent victim of this sort of thing got denounced as a scumbag for pointing out *I had it done to me* .
shrilly and hysterically in my view . And then you all tried to get me fucking banned for using the word hysterical, because it was blatant mysogyny.

Now your at it again because I agree with some of the points George Galloway brings up from time to time, and dont regard a lot of the criticism as valid or anything more than personalised abuse without much substance . Because I havent seen much substance to it . And have pointed out people keep electing him for saying it .

Ive kept this thread polite and non personal, Ive been courteous and even complimentary to posters throughout  despite disagreement . But it appears you want to start making it personal . I hope not because Ive tried to have political debate and dont want to abandon the thread because of left sectarianism degenerating as usual into personal abuse.


----------



## tufty79 (Jul 10, 2013)

that's why i asked whether it was you *or another poster*.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 10, 2013)

You've misrepresented it there CR, you used the case of this mystery poster and apparent reaction to said poster as a way to cast doubt on Assange's duty to face down rape charges in the original thread



Casually Red said:


> Its a scenario were ones partner wakens you by engaging in a sexual act . Which is a perfectly normal thing people in a sexual relationship engage in all the time .


 


Casually Red said:


> how are you supposed to know beforehand whether or not someone will reckon boundaries have been crossed when its a perfectly normal thing for couples, male and female, to do to one another. Tapping a sleeping partner on the shoulder to wake them and ask them if you have consent to enter them isnt exactly a very romantic thing to do.


I disagree with your comments about Assange and with your comments about Galloway and your absurd having a go at my post.

Back on topic: To reiterate what has been stated elsewhere many people in Brick Lane feel let down by Galloway that he did nothing despite the promises.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> You've misrepresented it there CR, you used the case of this mystery poster and apparent reaction to said poster as a way to cast doubt on Assange's duty to face down rape charges in the original thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
_mystery posters_ name starts with a D, hes quite left wing , anti fascist . Not hard to spot .


----------



## sihhi (Jul 10, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> _mystery posters_ name starts with a D, hes quite left wing , anti fascist . Not hard to spot .


 
Well Deareg was suggesting a different situation where long-term partner had already discussed and consented to what was acceptable with one another, to Assange's where he failed to acquire any consent for an act which he performed with someone he had met for the first time, even as the woman awoke to his act and attempted to resist but couldn't from his body weight (according to the statement).

You twisted this reaction on to half-infer Assange needn't face down the rape charges in Sweden, suggesting the claims against Assange weren't quite claims of a rape. Galloway in fact made a similar statement, the final straw in Salma Yaqoob leaving his party RESPECT.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Jul 10, 2013)

All Galloway's financial rewards and victories have seen every penny go in his back pocket, the multi millionaire British unionist socialist is doing all right and the Brit state must have a lot on the cunt but he remains at large. Anyone backing that fake is a fake, end of.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

fiannanahalba said:


> All Galloway's financial rewards and victories have seen every penny go in his back pocket, the multi millionaire British unionist socialist is doing all right and the Brit state must have a lot on the cunt but he remains at large.


 
yep. although he's too useful for them to arrest no matter what he has on them


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

fiannanahalba said:


> All Galloway's financial rewards and victories have seen every penny go in his back pocket, the multi millionaire British unionist socialist is doing all right and the Brit state must have a lot on the cunt but he remains at large. Anyone backing that fake is a fake, end of.


 

im sorry...are you callong me a fake something ..a fake what


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 10, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> im sorry...are you callong me a fake something ..a fake what


 
Well...Galloway is a multi-millionaire rape apologist. A lover of tyrants, a liar who only lines his own pockets.

A traitor, I think someone said.

You've probably not been here long enough to realise that sensible discussion about Galloway, who I like (although I disagree with some of his stuff) is impossible.

It's amazing...the same shit every time.

Meanwhile George wins every court case, wins every election and on matters of politics is one of the last great ones. Everyone else appeals to the middle, he takes on his opponents. He can out-talk them, out-argue them, out-soap-box them. On his radio show he took on all-comers and battered them....posters here were challenged to ring him up and wouldn't, I recall.

There's no-one to take his place.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 10, 2013)

I dont get it like...he took them on single handed in the US senate and made total cunts of them at a global media level . Hes getting slated here for making the left unpopular while getting elected to parliament in safe labour seats ..what the fucks that about. Then its anyone could do it...can they fuck.
If he won personal libel cases hes entitled to keep it..i flippin would and make no apologies for it .
That political campaign against Iraqi sanctions was a campaign against genocide. An unprincipled stand against genocide...ffs.

I dunno.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 11, 2013)




----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2013)

People keep going on about the big brother catsuit thing...he was doing that for a Palestinian charity.   Made £160,000 for it I think.   

A UK politician doing a very public act and making that much money for that particular cause.   And urbs shit on him.

The only UK MP to get thrown out of his party and be summoned to the US for his anti-war stance....where he beat the shit out of them.

Most of the time I think their judgementalism far outweighs any professed ethos.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Id take the view that from the early 70s to the 90s he rendered more physical assistance to anti imperialist causes than the entire west european left combined . Which admittedly wouldnt be hard . But from soweto to Ireland his active assistance was very much felt on the ground and deeply appreciated by many people .


 
Does Gaddafi's physical assistance to Farrakhan-era Nation of Islam count as one of the anti-imperialist efforts?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)




----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Does Gaddafi's physical assistance to Farrakhan-era Nation of Islam count as one of the anti-imperialist efforts?


 

i dont know. Maybe you could tell us the rationale behind it . Im not up to speed .

You seem to be trying to make the quite ridiculous point that because he donated money to a bad man it renders his financing of the ANC and others null and void . Which is bollocks because it actually happened in the real world.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

heres gadaffi on the subject

_ Colonel Qaddafi was quoted by the state press agency as saying: ''Our confrontation with America used to be like confronting a fortress from outside. Today we have found an opening to enter the fortress and to confront it from within.'_

seems like basic common sense to me_, _the west pull stunts like that all the time to gain political influence in other nations affairs_ ._ He had every right to do it back to them.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> He has possibly done more damage to the idea of a progressive working class political movement in recent years than any well known political figure in this country.


 
I disagree. He's the only politician in England who has clearly given the lie to the notion that you have to suck the filthy party cock to get elected. 

What is your counterfactual for how the progressive working class political movement would have evolved without Galloway?


----------



## thriller (Jul 11, 2013)

I love the guy. great orator. always fascinated listening to him.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 11, 2013)

Wolveryeti said:


> I disagree. He's the only politician in England who has clearly given the lie to the notion that you have to suck the filthy party cock to get elected.


 
What a load of absolute horseshit. Galloway was as much a careerist Labour party arsehole as anyone his whole political career, until John Smith died in 1994, which ended any chance Galloway would get a senior role or a cabinet position. Once his career was over, he's been available for hire ever since.

As a matter of fact spent the first few months following his election Bradford trying to worm his way back into the Labour party, not trying to build a wider regional grassroots political movement of the back of his MP's profile.

This is a cringeworthy display of wishful thinking from people who've decided that because Galloway showed up the US senate committee once with a bit of bombastic rhetoric he should be forgiven all evils. Anyone who's followed his career and his positions in detail knows better. He's a god-awful hack, with a litany of disgraces to his name (of which the rape apologism, and the "I won't speak to Israeli's" bullshit is just the most recent noteworthy examples) tbh you could go wild listing all the bollocks this guy has done over the decades.

The way Respect campaign is fucking terrible. Hanging around outside mosques dishing out leaflets trying to convince muslims that if they vote Respect they'll get exemption from planning permission for building new mosques is a standard one they use, not only is a problem because of how some deeply conservative islamic institutions and attitudes gets pandered too, but because it's untrue anyway - you can't become exempt from planning permission just because you get a councillor or an MP elected, it's a straightforward lie. He had a disgraceful record for this kind of campaigning in Bethnal Green. Slightly different situation in Bradford, but that was due to some specific circumstances on the ground.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

Wolveryeti said:


> I disagree. He's the only politician in England who has clearly given the lie to the notion that you have to suck the filthy party cock to get elected.


 
tsk tsk...his critics on here have dismissed that one and insisted a _whiff of charisma_ and a BB appearance is all it takes . Which would beg some obvious questions imho if it were remotely true.
Then theres _its a good thing his party talked to anglo asian women and undermined the gerrymander_, but hes a bastard for doing it .


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> tsk tsk...his critics on here have dismissed that one and insisted a _whiff of charisma_ and a BB appearance is all it takes . Which would beg some obvious questions imho if it were remotely true.
> Then theres _its a good thing his party talked to anglo asian women and undermined the gerrymander_, but hes a bastard for doing it .


 
Except that he's more than happy to go along with the gerrymandering and patriachical islamic bullshit if it suits him. He's got a track record that involves doing exactly that in Bethnal Green.

Problem is you don't actually know what you're talking about, and even if you did know this kind of stuff you'd be quite happy to look beyond it coz he once told off the US senate and that gives you a bit of a stiffy.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What a load of absolute horseshit. Galloway was as much a careerist Labour party arsehole as anyone his whole political career, until John Smith died in 1994, which ended any chance Galloway would get a senior role or a cabinet position. Once his career was over, he's been available for hire ever since.
> 
> As a matter of fact spent the first few months following his election Bradford trying to worm his way back into the Labour party, not trying to build a wider regional grassroots political movement of the back of his MP's profile.
> 
> .


 
am i the only one who sees a massive contradiction in this....when...or how.. exactly did galloway forsee a senior cabinet role in the modern labour party

and wasnt it miliband who asked to meet galloway, not vice versa

i think your wrong again del


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> coz he once told off the US senate.


 
yes delroy, he told off the fucking US senate....


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> am i the only one who sees a massive contradiction in this....when...or how.. exactly did galloway forsee a senior cabinet role in the modern labour party


 
He claims he was promised a job in the cabinet by John Smith prior to his death. Might be bollocks who knows. He is a liar.



Casually Red said:


> and wasnt it miliband who asked to meet galloway, not vice versa


 
I'm not talking about that though. Respect is a busted flush, a failure, infact they were on the verge of winding the organisation up and Galloway was going to go off to work for the Islam channel or whichever dodgy fucker will have him until the Bradford opportunity presented itself. 

Go watch the speech he gave after his election. He's practically begging Miliband to take him back. He made no effort to rebuild Respect or even to launch some kind of wider-regional anti cuts campaign - he used it to tried to worm his way back into Labour, which hasn't worked. He got elected and hasn't got fuck all to show for it.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 11, 2013)

I really, really, _*really*_ fucking hate the logic of:

'Look, this bloke's great with words, good at politics, loud, attacks the Americans'

'Yeah, but there's masses of evidence of self promotion, enrichment, cynicism - a wholly negative brand of big man, personality cult, machine politics every bit as bad as the old machines'

'But, but, but.... the bloke's great with words, good at politics, loud, attacks the Americans'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Wolveryeti said:


> I disagree. He's the only politician in England who has clearly given the lie to the notion that you have to suck the filthy party cock to get elected.
> 
> What is your counterfactual for how the progressive working class political movement would have evolved without Galloway?


 
The fact that you say _only_ rather undermines your point - after all, if it's not true that you need to 'suck the filthy party cock to get elected' then surely there would be others examples you could point to? But you can't - and no one from RESPECT managed to replicate GG's electoral performances outside of areas with very specific conditions (nor has GG for that) - every RESPECT councillor now in the labour or lib-dems or tories. As to the idea that the problem is not structural, that it's simply down to MPs bad personalities - just how naive can you get?

I think you need only look at the people lining up to defend Galloway on this thread to learn a lot.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 11, 2013)

he may not have sucked labours cock but he's sucked plenty of others, metaphorically speaking.

lest that be interpreted as a homophobic comment he's also really not keen on the gays iirc


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> lest that be interpreted as a homophobic comment he's also really not keen on the gays iirc


 

He's allied with and "glorifies" people who would execute homosexuals, but I think Galloway himself has an OK voting record on gay rights.


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2013)

Galloway is a swollen-headed fan of dictators and is closely allied with Sharia-mongers, so of course he is a bad thing.

Nevertheless, people are right to mention his abilities. 1. His talent as an orator stands out in an age that has few orators. 2. His ability at winning elections is impressive. It's not just that he sucks up to Muslims. Plenty of other slime-ball pols do that too. (It may have helped Livingstone, but it never did the Social Workers or other Islamophile Trots much good.) Galloway's election-winning involved looking closely at the constituency and finding out exactly which groups and influential individuals he had to win over to get elected. If he had to fly to Bangladesh to suck up to the right clan elders to get an endorsement he did it. If he had to harp on about the alleged boozing of his Muslim opponent standing for the Labour Party, he did it. It's not nice and it's not decent, but it works for him. Contrast the silly Social Workers who at one point in the Socialist Alliance period decided not to go canvassing. They're clueless, while Galloway is astute. No wonder GG won the faction fight in al-Respeq.


----------



## D'wards (Jul 11, 2013)

Overuses the phrase "two cheeks of the same arse" which is not that funny anyway.

Plus seems like a cigar smoker, and as we know, most cigar smokers are arseholes, with one or two exceptions


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The fact that you say _only_ rather undermines your point - after all, if it's not true that you need to 'suck the filthy party cock to get elected' then surely there would be others examples you could point to? But you can't - and no one from RESPECT managed to replicate GG's electoral performances outside of areas with very specific conditions (nor has GG for that) - every RESPECT councillor now in the labour or lib-dems or tories. As to the idea that the problem is not structural, that it's simply down to MPs bad personalities - just how naive can you get?


Why could someone representing a progressive working class movement not do a Galloway? Surely you lot are capable of oratory and understanding what a local electorate wants to hear?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Wolveryeti said:


> Why could someone representing a progressive working class movement not do a Galloway? Surely you lot are capable of oratory and understanding what a local electorate wants to hear?


 
Is that response to what i posted? Really? In what way?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jul 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is that response to what i posted? Really? In what way?


TBH I'm not really bothered about your reply. I'm mainly interested in understanding Frogwoman's:

'He has possibly done more damage to the idea of a progressive working class political movement in recent years than any well known political figure in this country.'


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

Wolveryeti said:


> TBH I'm not really bothered about your reply. I'm mainly interested in understanding Frogwoman's:
> 
> 'He has possibly done more damage to the idea of a progressive working class political movement in recent years than any well known political figure in this country.'


 
I though, am quite interested in your reply. The naive logic that underlay it and the conclusions you drew. Also why someone like you posted in support of GG.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 11, 2013)

D'wards said:


> Overuses the phrase "two cheeks of the same arse" which is not that funny anyway.
> 
> Plus seems like a cigar smoker, and as we know, most cigar smokers are arseholes, with one or two exceptions


Exceptions? Go on then name em.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Exceptions? Go on then name em.


 
Oh god, don't feed him punchlines.


----------



## D'wards (Jul 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Exceptions? Go on then name em.


 
Groucho, Winston, Clinton, Che


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2013)

Wolveryeti listen to the warnings...don't go against the church of urban.

It's not about all the positives Galloway has done, it's that the elders here don't like him.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 11, 2013)

D'wards said:


> Groucho, Winston, Clinton, Che


I might let you have Groucho. But Winston and Clinton! I'd chose Galloway over those two fucks any day of the week.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 11, 2013)

Jack Nicholson, Howard Cosell, Orson Wells, Peter Falk, Elvis, Alfred Hitchcock, James Coburn, Robert De Niro....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 11, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Jack Nicholson, Howard Cosell, Orson Wells, Peter Falk, Elvis, Alfred Hitchcock, James Coburn, Robert De Niro....


 
...and that girl who slandered tommy who was a bit of a slut anyway.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 11, 2013)

Wolveryeti said:


> Why could someone representing a progressive working class movement not do a Galloway?


 

Precisely because they should be representing a progressive working-class movement.


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2013)

D'wards said:


> Che


 
Yes, true, the mad Argy doctor was an asthmatic with a thing about will power and a cigar habit.  Instead of exercising this will power to give up the evil weed, he tested his determination to beat his asthma attacks by smoking cigars. When things got really bad and he couldn't breathe, he would inject himself with a shot of adrenaline.

I don't know why the Bolivians bothered shooting him. They could have just given him a big box of cigars and withheld the syringe.


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Wolveryeti listen to the warnings...don't go against the church of urban.
> 
> It's not about all the positives Galloway has done, it's that the elders here don't like him.


 

fuck em..the hornets nest of righteousness can buzzeth all it wants .And the funny thing is as far as Im concerned for all the stuff I do admire about him and agree with, Ive little doubt his ego and self promotion is such that hed be almost impossible to have a political relationship with over a prolonged period . But the same goes for all the jealous nitpickery directed against him ....ffaackk thatd be a nightmare to have to deal with in politics . Thankfully I never will . Galloways ego is at least amusing .

But anways the thread was about the good as opposed to the bad . He has done a lot of good things..the Maryam appeal, the palestinian aid convoy, an extremely principled stand against Blairs war were he was the only person calling for British soldiers to refuse to obey orders and take part, because it was illegal and a war crime. Handing that BB money over to Palestinian aid, his performance in the US senate, unseating those Labour Mps..that was all good stuff . As is keeping those issues in the mainstream domain . Hes one of the very few people doing that and he does a good job of it .
As regards his failure to mobilise the proletarian revolution thats simply not his job, its the supposed job of his critics here Id have thought. And hes personally unsuited to the task anyway . But a refusal to accept he has actually done and said some very good stuff is just ridiculous . Galloway is just one man stoking fires of hatred and contempt for the capitalist and imperialist system, in his own way . Thats it . The more people doing it the better . To be excoriating him for it is just ridiculous in my view.

Time for a quote from comrade Lenin on the Dublin uprising of 1916, which was excoriated by similar dour pedants on the far left of the Bolsheviks and elsewhere for not being a sufficiently class conscious effort.

 To imagine that social revolution is _conceivable_ without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie _with all its prejudices,_ without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc. – to imagine all this is to _repudiate social revolution._ So one army lines up in one place and says, 'We are for socialism', and another, somewhere else and says, 'We are for imperialism', and that will he a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view could vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a 'putsch'. 

 Whoever expects a 'pure' social revolution will _never_ live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is. 

I think theres some lessons to be had from that


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Precisely because they should be representing a progressive working-class movement.


 

why arent they..oh sorry..its because of Galloway making the task impossible for them


----------



## D'wards (Jul 11, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Jack Nicholson, Howard Cosell, Orson Wells, Peter Falk, Elvis, Alfred Hitchcock, James Coburn, Robert De Niro....


Jimmy Saville, Puff Daddy, Charlie Sheen, though i'm mostly thinking of non-celebrity cigar smokers. If you know anyone who smokes cigars they are probably an arsehole

Though i'm quite aware it might be the act of cigar smoking that pushes them over into arseholeness. Seems arrogant somehow to me


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think that was Revol68, but I might be wrong.


No, that wasn't revol


----------



## D'wards (Jul 11, 2013)




----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2013)

D'wards said:


>


 

The third Castro brother or the third Soprano brother?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

Its only a cigar ffs


----------



## D'wards (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Its only a cigar ffs


Oh, its so much more


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

no, its perfectly normal for people to smoke them . I like the odd one but i can really only afford a decent few once a month . A little luxury i deserve . The only thing that spoils it is uncultured types coming up and asking me why im smoking a cigar.


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no, its perfectly normal for people to smoke them . I like the odd one but i can really only afford a decent few once a month . A little luxury i deserve . The only thing that spoils it is uncultured types coming up and asking me why im smoking a cigar.


 
While you're puffing away, do you wear dark glasses and a poker face?


----------



## D'wards (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no, its perfectly normal for people to smoke them . I like the odd one but i can really only afford a decent few once a month . A little luxury i deserve . The only thing that spoils it is uncultured types coming up and asking me why im smoking a cigar.


 
Lol, are you of the insinuation that i am an uncultured fellow?


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

JHE said:


> While you're puffing away, do you wear dark glasses and a poker face?


 

i did once in prague, was sitting at a little pavement joint sipping coffee and slivovica , thinking to myself Carlos probably planned some of his best stuff in this town...then assumed the persona and the hundred yard stare behind the shades. Cuban naturally .

i do stuff like that when i think nobodys looking


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

D'wards said:


> Lol, are you of the insinuation that i am an uncultured fellow?


 
i hope not, but perhaps you could try broadening your horizons a tad. Cloth caps, whippets  and roll ups dont inspire revolutions.


----------



## D'wards (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i hope not, but perhaps you could try broadening your horizons a tad. Cloth caps, whippets and roll ups dont inspire revolutions.


Imagine George Osbourne and David Cameron sitting in leather chairs puffing on huge cigars, leaning their heads back and blowing smoke up to the ceiling and smiling contentedly. Go on, imagine it. Makes you angry right?!


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

D'wards said:


> Imagine George Osbourne and David Cameron sitting in leather chairs puffing on huge cigars, leaning their heads back and blowing smoke up to the ceiling and smiling contentedly. Go on, imagine it. Makes you angry right?!


 
its only their ability to breathe annoys me. Theres nothing wrong with a  comfy leather chair and a nice cigar . I quite like both .

you appear to be advocating some form of spartan ascetism, i dont agree. I like the odd luxury when i can manage it .


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2013)

cigars= outside the house please

I don't care if you are fidel himself, keep it outside


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

typical petit bourgeouis smallmindedness etc


----------



## D'wards (Jul 11, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> you appear to be advocating some form of spartan ascetism, i dont agree. I like the odd luxury when i can manage it .


 
Not at all. Nowt wrong with a bit of luxury when you fancy it, if you can afford it (i've been known to purchase a 4 pack of Imperial Leather from the Poundshop, the embodiment of 80's luxury). Its just something about cigar smoking.

Though i do think its important to give yourself a present every now and again. You keep on with the Montecristos, just try not to look so smug and arrogant whilst you do it


----------



## Casually Red (Jul 11, 2013)

D'wards said:


> Not at all. Nowt wrong with a bit of luxury when you fancy it, if you can afford it (i've been known to purchase a 4 pack of Imperial Leather from the Poundshop, the embodiment of 80's luxury). Its just something about cigar smoking.
> 
> Though i do think its important to give yourself a present every now and again. You keep on with the Montecristos, just try not to look so smug and arrogant whilst you do it


 

 i try and look like im up to no good


----------



## norwood (Jul 13, 2013)

He flys all over the world inciting muslim communitys.Just finished in oz.

Great speaker though.This is friggin funny.


----------



## norwood (Jul 13, 2013)

Poor old peter from leeds


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 13, 2013)

Here he is defending public sector strikers and destroying a Clarkson supporter.



Homophobic, rape-apologist scum


----------



## Wilf (Jul 13, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Here he is defending public sector strikers and destroying a Clarkson supporter.
> 
> 
> 
> Homophobic, rape-apologist scum







> I really, really, _*really*_ fucking hate the logic of:
> 
> 'Look, this bloke's great with words, good at politics, loud, attacks the Americans'
> 
> ...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 13, 2013)

I haven't used that logic.  All I see are personal attacks from people who think they are morally superior to GG and tired old bullshit about charities and cats.

He didn't 'attack the americans'...he was just about the only UK MP to stand up against the war.  A trade unionist who's stood up for the Palestinians for nearly 40 years, accusations of fiddling charities have led to multiple lawsuits, which he won. 

Self-promotion?  You're having a laugh...he's an MP.  Cynicism?  Don't think so, he could have had a cabinet post if he'd sucked cock.

Masses of evidence of enrichment?  Feel free to provide it.  Personality cult?  Just more shit thrown, hoping some sticks.

The Church of Urban doesn't like him....I do, generally.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I haven't used that logic. All I see are personal attacks from people who think they are morally superior to GG and tired old bullshit about charities and cats.
> 
> He didn't 'attack the americans'...he was just about the only UK MP to stand up against the war. A trade unionist who's stood up for the Palestinians for nearly 40 years, accusations of fiddling charities have led to multiple lawsuits, which he won.
> 
> ...


 



Is it rape if you stick your cock in a woman while she is asleep and has indicated that thats not ok, then held her down while completing your needs. He recons it is not

this 'church of Urban' stuff is pretty thin, you'll find most left wingers have serious problems with gorgeous.


You like him, great. Yaqoob ended up bailing on the Respect party over this. Nobody here denies his skill with word and his commitments to the causes he sepouses. Its not good enough, the rape thing was the dessicated grass piece that crippled the dromedary for me


/dotty


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 14, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I haven't used that logic. All I see are personal attacks from people who think they are morally superior to GG and tired old bullshit about charities and cats.


 
I haven't mentioned cats or charities once btw.

Corruption, cynicism, dishonesty, rape apologism, sectarianism, opportunism? Yes. Cats and charities? No. Best to ignore all that stuff though. Just block it out so you can feel better about your pathetic hero-worship.

This is a man who's so slippery no-one actually knows if he is or isn't a muslim. He certainly implies that he is ("God knows who is a Muslim") but he's never actually said it. Could it be he's ashamed of his religion? Or could it be that a big part of his modus operandi is to portray himself as a good catholic lad to the white working class voters and a good muslim to the muslim voters?

Tell you something else interesting too, y'know that senate committee hearing where he supposedly blows apart the yankee imperialist warmongers? Right at the beginning he mentions that the only company he owns is one that was set up to recieve income from his journalistic writings. All the Galloway boot-lickers tend to overlook this, but as it happens this is a well known tax-avoiding technique that's done so that individuals can avoid paying income tax on their journalistic earnings, and instead pay a much lower corporation tax rate instead. Funny, seeing as only last month he was lambasting the G8 for being "masters of tax avoidance and evasion" So we can add tax-dodger and hypocrite to the list too. Not that you'll let that get in the way of your arse-kissing.

Oh yeah and we can also add liar. Proven and indisputable liar. Not only did Galloway have one the lowest attendance records of any MP in parliament consistently throughout his tenure in Bethnal Green and Bow, but apparently he's the most expensive MP in parliament in terms of expenses claim per vote cast - no-one in Parliament does less work and claims more expenses than Galloway. http://fullfact.org/factchecks/George_Galloway_zero_expenses-10765 Here's the fact-check from Channel 4. Notice too that when pressured on this he claimed to have claimed _nothing_ in expenses. Zero. Nothing.



> Mr Raab’s claim that Mr Galloway was the most expensive backbench MP is correct when put in the context of the report by the London School of Economics, as he did. However, the report only covers a short period of time and uses an arbitrary measurement of MPs' performance.
> 
> Mr Galloway's statement that he claimed zero expenses appears to contradict the published information on MPs' expenses.
> 
> We have been in contact with Mr Galloway's constituency office and the Respect Party to clarify his remarks but they have not been able to explain his statement.


 
Not that any of this will matter to you, of course.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 14, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> He didn't 'attack the americans'...he was just about the only UK MP to stand up against the war. A trade unionist who's stood up for the Palestinians for nearly 40 years, accusations of fiddling charities have led to multiple lawsuits, which he won.


 
This is just untrue isn't it. 149 MPs voted for the anti-Iraq war amendment. Of those that voted against the war there were different levels of opposition from those who only voted against it once to those who have voted against it every time and participated in anti-war campaigns. Whatever you think about the level of their opposition, it is simply not true he was the only one opposing it and I don't see why this is repeated in his defence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm

Galloway might be the most prominent of them but so what? A lot of people have made quite good arguments why that is not a good thing. And his rampant ego, rape apologism, sectarianism and support for authoritarian regimes are just some of them.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 14, 2013)

I stick by what I said when they expelled him.Why could they not have expelled Jermey Corbuen instead.

Of course I expect people will now explain just why he is an utter dick as well.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I haven't mentioned cats or charities once btw.
> 
> Corruption, cynicism, dishonesty, rape apologism, sectarianism, opportunism? Yes. Cats and charities? No. Best to ignore all that stuff though. Just block it out so you can feel better about your pathetic hero-worship.
> 
> ...


 
Garbage. 

You post a load of angry shite, I don't care. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, my world model includes people who don't agree with me. When you start calling me a boot-licker and an arse-kisser you don't really expect me to take you seriously, do you? You think that gets a reasoned response? No, you just want an argument.

The thing about you lot....you want to shut down rational discussion on Galloway, you always have to get personal and make it about moral indignation...superiority....judgement.  Not just with Galloway but with anyone who disagrees with you.

That's where the church bit comes from, see?


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Is it rape if you stick your cock in a woman while she is asleep and has indicated that thats not ok, then held her down while completing your needs. He recons it is not
> 
> this 'church of Urban' stuff is pretty thin, you'll find most left wingers have serious problems with gorgeous.
> 
> ...


 
A couple of points, froggy. One for each paragraph (apart from the /dotty bit which I don;t get.)

Yes, it is rape. Apart from one disputable sentence do you have any other comment at all by Galloway to show any form of rape-apologism or sexism that has made this the last straw for you?

No...I only find the left-wingers on urban to be the ones who have a problem with George and a lot of it certainly comes across as holier-than-thou. Urban is not 'the left wing' and you, yourself, don't speak for the majority of...well anything really. Neither do I.

If a politician is a skilled wordsmith and shows real commitment to the causes he espouses and that is not enough for you that's fine...I'm sure whoever replaces him will do a better job of pushing whatever policies you're into.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2013)

it means that dotty wrote that as he can't get on his account. and he is 100% right.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2013)

fuck excusing galloway because he "did such great things for the cause" and he happened to say some left wing things once upon a time. he's only interested in his own ego. fuck him. what kind of left winger pals around with fucking islamists and uses dog-whistle islamist populism to try and get votes? no. fuck him.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 14, 2013)

and shit like this exactly how the comrade delta thing happened. "He's such a great socialist, he's done such great things for the party," etc. No. Fuck off. Leave cults of personality to our enemies.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> it means that dotty wrote that as he can't get on his account. and he is 100% right.


 
Anything on the points I made?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> A couple of points, froggy. One for each paragraph (apart from the /dotty bit which I don;t get.)
> 
> Yes, it is rape. Apart from one disputable sentence do you have any other comment at all by Galloway to show any form of rape-apologism or sexism that has made this the last straw for you?
> 
> ...


 
me niether, you're being weird. Very weird. Don't you like it when people say things about st george then?

/dotty


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Anything on the points I made?


 


You haven't made any points. 

/dotty


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> me niether, you're being weird. Very weird. Don't you like it when people say things about st george then?
> 
> /dotty


 
It's not weird.

Apart from one debatable sentence in response to a complex case...do you have any other remark by Galloway that has convinced you of his propensity for rape-apologism?

st george?  Do you even read posts?   This is what I'm saying...there's no discussion...suddenly the accusation is that my stance is that Galloway is holy and can do no wrong.   By inference I become a rape-apologist...without any substantiation of the original allegation.

The politics of shit-throwing.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2013)

jesus christ grow up. You're climbing onto the cross and begging me to nail you there. Yes its weird. Have you been drinking?

so its debatable. 


> one debatable sentence in response to a complex case.


 
ok. Not where I'm coming from. 

what are these other points then. I'm fucking agog

/dotty


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 15, 2013)

They're adequately laid out in #144 numerically consistent with my quote of you in the same post...any reasonably sober person can figure it out.   If you can't understand it then throwing accusations of drunkenness at me is only to deflect. 

But never mind...if I ask you if you have any other statement from Galloway which backs up your slur of rape-apology and you say it's not debatable...why the fuck am I talking to you? 

Throwing shit and causing arguments.  The emptiest drums make the loudest sound.

If you think that's rude...consider the way you talk to me first.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 15, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Anything on the points I made?


 
How about the points I made? About the tax-dodging and the lying and the expenses and so on?

You've got a nerve having a go at someone else for not answering your points after you dismissed the detailed and specific criticisms I've made as "angry shite" then again you've got to have some sort of brass neck to be able to defend someone who's disgraced and discredited himself on so many occasions.

Froggy's right, it's this sort of mentality that allows for the Comrade Delta shit to happen, pathetic hero-worship, a refusal to judge someone on actions rather than words, an ability to overlook or excuse anything because they've done so much for the "cause". There's only one cause Galloway is interested in and that's Galloway. That's why despite winning over £3million in libel cases against right-wing newspapers he decided not to spend that money building Respect into a viable political movement but bought himself a fucking huge villa in Portugal instead. That's where this man's priorities lie.


----------



## Sirena (Jul 15, 2013)

I like George Galloway.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 15, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> They're adequately laid out in #144 numerically consistent with my quote of you in the same post...any reasonably sober person can figure it out. If you can't understand it then throwing accusations of drunkenness at me is only to deflect.
> 
> But never mind...if I ask you if you have any other statement from Galloway which backs up your slur of rape-apology and you say it's not debatable...why the fuck am I talking to you?
> 
> ...


 
so basically thats a no then? wasting my time. cheers.


/dc


----------



## JHE (Jul 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> ...he decided not to spend that money building Respect into a viable political movement but bought himself a fucking huge villa in Portugal instead.


 

Good!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 15, 2013)

JHE said:


> Good!


 
Yeah to be fair that might be a blessing in disguise.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 15, 2013)

Artem Lusk said:


> Whatever his flaws, Galloway clearly believes in most of what he does. After all, as somebody has pointed out, with his undoubted talents he could have played the game and got a cabinet post. Instead he chose no-hope fringe politics.


 


He did play the game, ruthlessly, for many years. Decades infact. He played this game so well that he was even on the verge of getting a cabinet post and was only prevented from achieving this by the death of John Smith. Had he got into the cabinet you'd have seen a very different, New Labour, George Galloway. He didn't choose no-hope fringe politics, he simply had no other means of making a career, and infact to this day would probably abandon everything if they let him back in the Labour party.

If David Blunkett, or Robin Cook, or any of the others who were around in the 90's had their ambitions curtailed like he did they might well have done the same. Don't forget Blunkett was apparently a hard-left socialist before he had the opportunity of a ministerial position dangled in front of him. Galloway's trajectory would've been no different to any of them.

He may or may not believe in what he does, but that's secondary, because the primary purpose of what he does is to satisfy his ego and make as much money as he can in the process.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 15, 2013)

Artem Lusk said:


> Sometimes, though, intelligent people can't recognise reality. Look at Scargill and the SLP.


 
Speaking of which, I don't particularly like Scargill I think he's an egotistical maniac, but I certainly think he was more sincere in his actions than Galloway's ever been.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 15, 2013)

Artem Lusk said:


> I wasn't talking in that instance about sincerity, just the refusal or inability of many intelligent people to recognise reality. Rarely has there been such an error of judgement than the launching of an alternative 'socialist' Labour Party, especially in the context of the day.


 
the SLP was before my time, I could do with knowing more about it and might even start a thread.


----------



## JHE (Jul 15, 2013)

Galloway clearly does have some sincere loyalties.  He loves the Arab world, hates Israel and shares Arab feelings about the 'Nakba'.  He admires Baathist dictators.  He also admired the Soviet Union and he is all for Castroite Cuba.  He loved being treated as an important British politician by F Castro.  In the absence of Baathists or Communists to suck up to, he is happy to suck up to Islamists, no matter how murderous.  He does not always follow fashion.  He has not adopted Scottish nationalism though it is all the rage among leftish Scots.  He is utterly sincere in his criticism of US (and UK) foreign policy.  With the invasion of Iraq, he could have avoided being thrown out of the Labour Party, but chose to be the most outspoken critic and appeared to say he thought British troops should disobey orders and that people in Iraq were right to kill British troops.  In general, I don't like his opinions, but Galloway is much more than a mere careerist.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 15, 2013)

JHE said:


> Galloway is much more than a mere careerist.


 
I can see where you're coming from in your post, but he was a pariah in the Labour party before the 2nd Iraq war broke out. If he'd still been in the running for a ministerial position at the time I doubt he'd have said the things he did say that got him kicked out of Labour. Infact it's noticable that in 1991 at the time of the first gulf war, when he still had a potential place in the cabinet lined up, although he was against the war he didn't say all that stuff about British troops. He was more cautious then than he was after his Labour party career was all but over.

I might have to withdraw a few of the things I've said though, he's not just a pure careerist there's a more too him than that, although he most definitely is one. 

Also, on the issue of Scottish nationalism, I daresay that's because he still had some kind of hope of being let back into the Labour party, so keeping a pro-union line might be more to do with that than genuine principle.


----------



## ayatollah (Jul 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I can see where you're coming from in your post, but he was a pariah in the Labour party before the 2nd Iraq war broke out. If he'd still been in the running for a ministerial position at the time I doubt he'd have said the things he did say that got him kicked out of Labour. Infact it's noticable that in 1991 at the time of the first gulf war, when he still had a potential place in the cabinet lined up, although he was against the war he didn't say all that stuff about British troops. He was more cautious then than he was after his Labour party career was all but over.
> 
> I might have to withdraw a few of the things I've said though, he's not just a pure careerist there's a more too him than that, although he most definitely is one.
> 
> Also, on the issue of Scottish nationalism, I daresay that's because he still had some kind of hope of being let back into the Labour party, so keeping a pro-union line might be more to do with that than genuine principle.


 
I don't think you should withdraw anything Delroy Booth - other than to fine tune the categorisation of Galloway  - away from "careerist" to something much, much,  more basic and universally familiar ie,  "follow  the money ",  and he's revealed as just another lifelong  unprincipled political opportunist whose gobby virtuosity as a charismatic speaker is always "for hire".

Look at Galloway's career , forget trying to identify  a distinct political basis for his numerous twists and turns, and what you actually find is simply a "golden thread" of filthy lucre pursuit .Galloway obviously grasped very early on as a young  glibly effective  Leftie poseur that there was a lifetime of high income to be earned via singing the various modish "tunes"  of  the always gullible "anti imperialist Left and liberal issues"  market ,and for a long time now also the well resourced (and often amazingly  contradictory to the Leftie market 's values),  "Islamic issues market".  So he, like so many other opportunists has  "commodified" political  activity entirely for his own profit   - whether thrashing the expense account as head of the modishly "radical" War on Want charity , posing it as a (shamefully low workrate)  MP in various opportunistic "branding" guises , brown-nosing it ,sucking up to various murderous but modishly "anti imperialist" Middle Eastern dictators - and their paid propaganda services ,  bullshitting it , by  getting equally very lucrative "controversial voice" journalistic contracts in the UK on the strength of his "notoriety",  and  profitably championing/promoting  the Muslim side of the Kashmir dispute too . 

 History is of course absolutely littered with entirely self serving creatures in the political sphere just like Galloway, across the political spectrum. Galloway is of exactly the same ilk as the numerous formerly Left French politicians who simply did an immediate  complete about face to shamelessly embrace Vichy fascism once the "political market place" did a flip and opened up massive new career opportunities as Nazis, after the fall of France .  The man is pure political poison, with no redeeming features whatsoever .


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 15, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> ...Galloway is of exactly the same ilk as the numerous formerly Left French politicians who simply did an immediate complete about face to shamelessly embrace Vichy fascism once the "political market place" did a flip and opened up massive new career opportunities as Nazis, after the fall of France ....


----------



## J Ed (Jul 18, 2013)




----------



## JHE (Jul 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


>


 

Yeah, he fuckin' loves it!

The picture should have been of GG with Amadinejad, Assad of Syria, Saddam Hussein, Yassin of Hamarse and Nasrallah of Hezbollocks...  GG would be equally chuffed with that motley bunch of Slamists and Baathists.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 18, 2013)

"Tidal wave of Guff"

By far and away his best quote following the death of Thatcher


----------



## sihhi (Jul 18, 2013)

You can buy an album of his greatest hits smartly titled _The Best of George Galloway, Vol. 1_ for £7.99

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/best-george-galloway-vol./id651398999


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 19, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> "Tidal wave of Guff"
> 
> By far and away his best quote following the death of Thatcher


 
Nicked from David Broder 40 years previous.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Jul 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Where's the basis for this? I think his "gifts" as an orator are vastly overstated, cheap unprincipled demagogue is perhaps a better description. And that's being charitable.



I've been looking for transcripts of his speeches in the run-up to, and during, the 2003 invasion and destruction of Iraq. His tireless opposition, which was principled and of great clarity, won't be forgotten.


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

The latest move in Galloway's principled and tireless campaign of self-aggrandisement: the London mayoralty?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2013)

He'd never manage that, it would be hilarious if he did, but highly unlikely


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 13, 2013)

A bunch of Respect Councillors have publicly called for him to step down as MP if he runs. Galloway promptly suspended them.


----------



## YouSir (Aug 13, 2013)

Oh fuck off. First Boris now this gobshite, can't Newcastle or Manchester or somewhere take a turn with the novelty prick mayors?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

Red Trousers.


----------



## JHE (Aug 13, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> A bunch of Respect Councillors have publicly called for him to step down as MP if he runs. Galloway promptly suspended them.


 

He does take a rather Baathist view on party leadership!  I suppose they should feel grateful that he hasn't had their families shot.

The councillors in question are being a bit premature, though.  The next London Mayoral election is in 2016, I believe, and the next general election is in 2015.  Who knows whether GG will still be an MP in 2016?  Who knows whether he will even try to stand again in Bradford West in 2015, let alone win?

Galloway is just thinking aloud about the London Mayoralty and doing so in his usual boastful way.  That's all.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 13, 2013)

GG versus the bongo-bongo land ukip MEP.


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

JHE said:


> He does take a rather Baathist view on party leadership! I suppose they should feel grateful that he hasn't had their families shot.
> 
> The councillors in question are being a bit premature, though. The next London Mayoral election is in 2016, I believe, and the next general election is in 2015. Who knows whether GG will still be an MP in 2016? Who knows whether he will even try to stand again in Bradford West in 2015, let alone win?
> 
> Galloway is just thinking aloud about the London Mayoralty and doing so in his usual boastful way. That's all.


 

There'd be lots of preparing the ground and positioning ahead of then, though. And despite that the possibility of him winning London is tiny, I could imagine his sizeable ego leading him to contest the race. So I can see why the Bradford folks would be peeved. Though to be fair they must have known what kind of man they were getting when he rolled into West Yorkshire.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 13, 2013)

JHE said:


> He does take a rather Baathist view on party leadership! I suppose they should feel grateful that he hasn't had their families shot.
> 
> The councillors in question are being a bit premature, though. The next London Mayoral election is in 2016, I believe, and the next general election is in 2015. Who knows whether GG will still be an MP in 2016? Who knows whether he will even try to stand again in Bradford West in 2015, let alone win?
> 
> Galloway is just thinking aloud about the London Mayoralty and doing so in his usual boastful way. That's all.


 

Yep agree about the councillors but think they did this because they can't stand him and have taken the opportunity to get rid of him.


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 13, 2013)

IMO, he hasn't the faintest hope of either retaining his Bradford seat, or -- even less so -- of coming anywhere close in London after he loses.

Liking Delroy's, JHE's and especially ayatollah's posts. GG : Charlatan to the core.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yep agree about the councillors but think they did this because they can't stand him and have taken the opportunity to get rid of him.


 
They can't get rid of him. They can't do anything.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 13, 2013)

Due to his indefatigability.


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> IMO, he hasn't the faintest hope of either retaining his Bradford seat, or -- even less so -- of coming anywhere close in London after he loses.
> 
> Liking Delroy's, JHE's and especially ayatollah's posts. Charlatan to the core.


 

I'd bet he knows this already. Not much point investing too much in Bradford. The London race would present good opportunities to raise his national profile especially through more TV gigs in the run-up. From there, it could be a soft-bounce into a well-paid media position in the capital. If I was his Number 2 that's what I'd advise.


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

Who is George's Number 2 these days? 







I recall that Asad R was his bag-handler at the time of the US Congressional hearing. Then was it Rob H after or before and after the Respect implosion?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

I'd bee keeping an eye on Scottish seats come next SP election.


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd bee keeping an eye on Scottish seats come next SP election.


 

Is that "bee" a typo? Or a subtle pun-hint?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

benedict said:


> Who is George's Number 2 these days?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Interesting court case this week i think:



> My former secretary, Aisha Ali Khan, and the boyfriend Detective Inspector Afiz Khan stand accused of sundry offences against the public, and the Respect Party. Justice will take its course.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

benedict said:


> Is that "bee" a typo? Or a subtle pun-hint?


 
Typo! Sorry ( i like the idea of posting stuff through hints and mere suggestion though)


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Typo! Sorry ( i like the idea of posting stuff through hints and mere suggestion though)


 

Thought there might be a bee- or honey- related constituency name and you had an inside track


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 13, 2013)

Kid_Eternity said:


> A bunch of Respect Councillors have publicly called for him to step down as MP if he runs. Galloway promptly suspended them.


 
That's one point of view.  Here's George's.
http://redmolucca.wordpress.com/201...n=Feed:+FeedRedMolucca+(Feed+for+Red+Molucca)


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

George is a serious political operator. Do not mess.


----------



## coley (Aug 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Is it rape if you stick your cock in a woman while she is asleep and has indicated that thats not ok, then held her down while completing your needs. He recons it is not
> 
> this 'church of Urban' stuff is pretty thin, you'll find most left wingers have serious problems with gorgeous.
> 
> ...



His skill with words? Possibly, his. 'Commitment'? the only commitment he has is to himself, using whatever popular vehicle/ cause is available, though on a certain level he has proved that someone with guts and charisma can beat the party machine, Now, if enough people with with integrity were to emulate him we could have the makings of a decent political class.
Because love him or hate him,he does get himself noticed!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

I don't know how anyone can form an objective opninion about the guy. Where's the evidence? It all sounds like conjecture and rumour. I certainly can't reach an infromed opinion about whether he's corrupt or even really self serving. Certainly he's vain and quite possibly arrogant - but wouldn't you be if you were in the public eye? You'd need a thick skin for sure. He certainly made an utter arse of himself on BB, but then that's not a crime, nor does it discredit his political views, most of which, it seems to me, are sound - even if it turns out the man behind them is a massive cunt. I don't know that he is. How can I?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't know how anyone can form an objective opninion about the guy. Where's the evidence?


He was my MP in Glasgow Hillhead, and I base my opinion of him on the contact I had with him then, including correspondence Mrs La Rouge and I had with him. From this, and from press interviews over the years, I can piece together a picture of his views, his character, and the way he operates. My opinion? He has an entertaining turn of phrase, but if I was starting a parliamentary party of the left, I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> He was my MP in Glasgow Hillhead, and I base my opinion of him on the contact I had with him then, including correspondence Mrs La Rouge and I had with him. From this, and from press interviews over the years, I can piece together a picture of his views, his character, and the way he operates. My opinion? He has an entertaining turn of phrase, but if I was starting a parliamentary party of the left, I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole.


Ok, but for anyone else that's just hearsay - and not even that as there's nothing to form an opinion on.

Your observations may be correct and I'm not diminishing or denying your experience. However for me, speaking for myself trying to form my own opinion, that tells me nothing I'm afraid.


----------



## benedict (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't know how anyone can form an objective opninion about the guy. Where's the evidence? It all sounds like conjecture and rumour. I certainly can't reach an infromed opinion about whether he's corrupt or even really self serving. Certainly he's vain and quite possibly arrogant - but wouldn't you be if you were in the public eye? You'd need a thick skin for sure. He certainly made an utter arse of himself on BB, but then that's not a crime, nor does it discredit his political views, most of which, it seems to me, are sound - even if it turns out the man behind them is a massive cunt. I don't know that he is. How can I?


 

How do you form an opinion about _anything_ at all?

We're not dealing with specific matters of fact that are in dispute, like a court case or something where it really does seem impossible to reach a view as an outsider. We're dealing with very general opinions about an individual about whom there are reams of information available and who has lived a large proportion of his life in the public eye. Along with personal interactions in some cases. The _evidence_ is the vast array of publicly available information concerning George's actions and statements. From there, move from evidence to opinion by making certain inferences based upon your own vast prior experience of the social world, analogizing to other similar cases, considering the necessary conditions for something to be the case, etc. We do this all the time. Why is George different?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

I form opinions through balance of evidence, extension of trust where earned and within reason.

What I have heard from GG is consistent. I have no evidence to suggest he secretly supported Saddam, or that he sold oil or whatever else. Do you?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Must s/he in order to establish a method, a path, to credibly dealing with a range of evidences.  _No_ is the answer that you're going to waffle around.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Must s/he in order to establish a method, a path, to credibly dealing with a range of evidences. _No_ is the answer that you're going to waffle around.


This post literally makes no sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Yes it does. Literally.


----------



## JHE (Aug 14, 2013)

Allah knows who the true egomaniacal Isamophile supporters of dictatorships are.  He alone can judge.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

Who's Allan?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it does. Literally.


Are you five?

Your post has no grammar that makes any sense. Try again.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Go away and shoot your feet off wishface.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Who's Allan?


He was an entertaining poster of yore.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Are you five?
> 
> Your post has no grammar that makes any sense. Try again.


 
Yes i am. Now what?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Go away and shoot your feet off wishface.


Is this another instance of you trolling?

I haven't posted on here in four years and yet you, inexplicably, have dredged up some imagined slight from years before just to wave your dick around. Good to see this place is still overpopulated with poseurs and armchair class warriors, like you for instance, who do fuck all except get offended by someone changing their user name. What's wrong with you ffs?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

_Changing their username_. lol. Is that grammatically correct?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Changing their username_. lol. Is that grammatically correct?


 
Yes.

And more so than: "Must s/he in order to establish a method, a path, to credibly dealing with a range of evidences."

Instead of being a twat, why not simply reword your post. I have no idea what the point you were trying to make is.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Yes.
> 
> And more so than: "Must s/he in order to establish a method, a path, to credibly dealing with a range of evidences."
> 
> Instead of being a twat, why not simply reword your post. I have no idea what the point you were trying to make is.


 
You genuinely don't do you? Odd little creature.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You genuinely don't do you? Odd little creature.


It surprises you that, in saying I don't understand what you said, that I might actually not have understood what you said?

Yes, I can see how that might seem odd.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Yes.
> 
> And more so than: "Must s/he in order to establish a method, a path, to credibly dealing with a range of evidences."
> 
> Instead of being a twat, why not simply reword your post. I have no idea what the point you were trying to make is.


if you don't - or won't - understand butchers' point then i don't see how his shuffling the words would make any difference.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> It surprises you that, in saying I don't understand what you said, that I might actually not have understood what you said?
> 
> Yes, I can see how that might seem odd.


There is no surprise here, i assure you.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if you don't - or won't - understand butchers' point then i don't see how his shuffling the words would make any difference.


 
Grammar isn't simply 'shuffling the words' about.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is no surprise here, i assure you.


What on earth is wrong with you? I haven't posted here for 4 years and yet you seem to bear some grudge on an internet forum against someone you've never met. Why?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Grammar isn't simply 'shuffling the words' about.


 
Yes it is. I'm only five and even know that i.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> What on earth is wrong with you? I haven't posted here for 4 years and yet you seem to bear some grudge on an internet forum against someone you've never met. Why?


 
Read your heart attack enabling posts. Then ask yourself why i might think that you are a bit of a twat (and a proven liar - changed names ffs)


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

I give up. I've tried being reasonable and yet you just want to bear a grudge for some dreamed up nonsense. Fuck knows why. Obviously there is something wrong with you, I hope you get help for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Grammar isn't simply 'shuffling the words' about.


you talked about rewording the post, which seems to be asking him to say what he's said in different words and not about grammar at all.


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> I give up. I've tried being reasonable and yet you just want to bear a grudge for some dreamed up nonsense. Fuck knows why. Obviously there is something wrong with you, I hope you get help for it.


If into the George Galloway you go, only pain will you find


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Read your heart attack enabling posts. Then ask why i might think that you are a bit of a twat (and a proven liar - changed names ffs)


 
I'm asking YOU why you have this attitude towards me. I've asked you several times including yesterday after your bizarre childish outburst and yet you seem incapable of providing a simple answer other than to take great offence that someone on an internet forum might change their name.

How terrible for you. That years and years ago I switched usernames. That someone you have never met and don't know changed their name on an internet forum you share. This has scarred you so bad that now, over four years later, you still haven't gotten over it.

And yet despite all that, you simply cannot behave as anything other than a petulant little infant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> If into the George Galloway you go, only pain will you find


use the force cesare


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> If into the George Galloway you go, only pain will you find


 
_If into the George Robey you go, only pain will you find._

(is that even still open?)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If into the George Robey you go, only pain will you find.
> 
> (is that even still open?)


shut down years ago


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you talked about rewording the post, which seems to be asking him to say what he's said in different words and not about grammar at all.


 Correct, and the reason I asked him to do this one simple thing was because the grammar of his post was completely fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> shut down years ago


 
The good always die young


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _If into the George Robey you go, only pain will you find._
> 
> (is that even still open?)


I think it's closed now


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> shut down years ago





cesare said:


> I think it's closed now


johnny come lately


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Correct, and the reason I asked him to do this one simple thing was because the grammar of his post was completely fucked.


Much to learn you still have


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> johnny come lately


I wandered off to make a coffee


----------



## Awesome Wells (Aug 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> Much to learn you still have


Indeed.

And we learn by asking people to explain what they mean.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Indeed.
> 
> And we learn by asking people to explain what they mean.


 
And by shouting.


----------



## cesare (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Indeed.
> 
> And we learn by asking people to explain what they mean.


Truly wonderful the mind of a child is


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Indeed.
> 
> And we learn by asking people to explain what they mean.


 
You meant meant here. Not mean.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Indeed.
> 
> And we learn by asking people to explain what they mean.


what do you mean? what is your meaning?


----------



## JHE (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Who's Allan?


 

The merciful and beneficent Allan has 99 names and He will not be mocked.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 14, 2013)

JHE said:


> The merciful and beneficent Allan has 99 names


And every one is written on a red balloon.


----------



## Wilf (Aug 14, 2013)

JHE said:


> The merciful and beneficent Allan has 99 names and He will not be mocked.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 14, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> Indeed.
> 
> And we learn by asking people to explain what they mean.


 
You're assuming they're not just trying to belittle and bully you.  If both butcher and pickman are at you at the same time, best to tune them out.  Pointless getting involved.


----------



## bamalama (Aug 14, 2013)

> If both butcher and pickman are at you at the same time


----------



## kenny g (Aug 14, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> You're assuming they're not just trying to belittle and bully you. If both butcher and pickman are at you at the same time, best to tune them out. Pointless getting involved.


 

Both on perma - ignore so well tuned out. I worked out long ago that pickman has got fuck all of interest to say. Butchers is like many so called anarchists little more than a failed authoritarian.

ETA - just noticed that I haven't had butchers on ignore - shows how much impact his posturing has had.


----------



## JHE (Aug 14, 2013)

Apron won't want to admit it, but all his 'fuck off', 'go away', 'don't post here', 'don't come back', 'lock yourself in a cupboard' stuff is all part of his training programme. Like an ever-sparing, ever-jogging, jab-jab-jab, skip-skip boxer preparing for the big fight, Apron is preparing for his big break - the finals of the World's Bossiest Anarchist Contest. Forget "failed authoritarian". I mean forget "failed". No way! The boy's a contender!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2013)

Seriously, you two?


----------



## redsquirrel (Aug 14, 2013)

Christ, Dexter and this new twat. All we need now is for Kismet and Gmart to turn up and we'll have a full house of boring supercilious liberal thick-as-pig shit wankers.


----------



## benedict (Aug 15, 2013)

Awesome Wells said:


> I form opinions through balance of evidence, extension of trust where earned and within reason.
> 
> What I have heard from GG is consistent. I have no evidence to suggest he secretly supported Saddam, or that he sold oil or whatever else. Do you?


 
I don't have evidence of these things. Also, I don't claim that either is true. And I haven't seen anyone else on here doing so. So what's your point?

We agree that opinions are formed on the balance of evidence. So what's your issue with taking a stance on George's politics and character? We've plenty of evidence. So why did you say it's impossible to form an opinion? Isn't is just that your opinion is different to those expressed here?

ETA. Should have read the thread to the end. I see this has gone swiftly downhill.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 15, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ, Dexter and this new twat. All we need now is for Kismet and Gmart to turn up and we'll have a full house of boring supercilious liberal thick-as-pig shit wankers.


 
I wasn't aware I was in such illustrious company.  (Christ, that is).  (Church of Dexter is an atheist church)

Anyway, don't let my comedic riposte get in the way of your comma-lite personal insults.

That's the way of a Galloway thread, isn't it?  Funny how all the shit-throwing seems to come from one side.  And that sentence shows what you try to create...one side v another.   

You've no interest in any discussion.  You and your cohorts don't want discussion, you want unanimity in your ...supercilious...derision.   Anything goes, eh?


----------



## bamalama (Aug 15, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I wasn't aware I was in such illustrious company. (Christ, that is). (Church of Dexter is an atheist church)
> 
> Anyway, don't let my comedic riposte get in the way of your comma-lite personal insults.
> 
> ...


Big words from a man who declares his own excuse for humour as comedic...en garde


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 15, 2013)

Just a post with a challenge for debate without personal insult.   Have I been foiled?


----------



## bamalama (Aug 15, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Just a post with a challenge for debate without personal insult. Have I been foiled?


A self regarding post,no challenge there...aye that was almost funny,fair play,took a bit of effort to work it in though


----------



## brogdale (Aug 18, 2013)

He's selling his house.

Check out photo no. 5


----------



## JHE (Aug 18, 2013)

brogdale said:


> He's selling his house.
> 
> Check out photo no. 5


 

Gawd, that's a lovely house.

Not what I think of when I hear someone lives in Streatham!

(I'm not surprised to see the photo of Dr Guevara. I'm just surprised not see any photos of the great Mr Galloway MP.)


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They can't get rid of him. They can't do anything.



Not sure they see it that way.


----------



## JHE (Aug 18, 2013)

If you mean the councillors, they've now all resigned from al-Respeq, haven't they?


----------



## Belushi (Aug 18, 2013)

JHE said:


> Gawd, that's a lovely house.
> 
> Not what I think of when I hear someone lives in Streatham!
> 
> (I'm not surprised to see the photo of Dr Guevara. I'm just surprised not see any photos of the great Mr Galloway MP.)


 
There are some lovely streets in that part of Streatham (I used to live on one).

Coincidentally, Ambleside Avenue is where Cynthia Payne lived, and held her parties, back in the 80's.


----------



## JHE (Aug 18, 2013)

Do the yoot round there have avenue cred?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2013)

JHE said:


> Gawd, that's a lovely house.
> 
> Not what I think of when I hear someone lives in Streatham!
> 
> (I'm not surprised to see the photo of Dr Guevara. I'm just surprised not see any photos of the great Mr Galloway MP.)


 
I wouldn't buy it. It's a lovely house*, but it's on a road that's busy from about 06.30-22.00, one of the main (one-way) feeds from the southern end of Streatham High Road towards Tooting and (eventually) the dual carriageway to Wandsworth Bridge. Only a few dozen yards from Cynthia Payne's old gaff, too. 

I love the "mature and secluded garden" estate agent _schtick_. It's "secluded" because it sits between the back gardens of two roads-full of semis, and is walled! It's overlooked by at least 20 houses!

*I lived about 100 yards away for 4 years)


----------



## JHE (Aug 19, 2013)

My main reason for not buying it is that I haven't got one and a half million quid.  I've looked in all my pockets, had a good old rummage down the back of the sofa and everything.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> He's selling his house.
> 
> Check out photo no. 5


 
Did anyone notice the "G" book ends on his bookshelf?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> He's selling his house.


 
So which bedroom is the one where the MCU magic happened?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2013)

JHE said:


> My main reason for not buying it is that I haven't got one and a half million quid. I've looked in all my pockets, had a good old rummage down the back of the sofa and everything.


 
I bet you haven't even *tried* to rob a bank.


----------



## JimW (Aug 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wouldn't buy it....


 
Ah but come on VP, that one and a half mill is just going to sit round on your mantelpiece gathering dust if you don't get it out there working in the property market  .


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 19, 2013)

JHE said:


> If you mean the councillors, they've now all resigned from al-Respeq, haven't they?



Yup looks like.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Did anyone notice the "G" book ends on his bookshelf?


 
gawjus


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2013)

Has a massive house. Lays down rugs that look like 1970s pub carpets. Fail.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 19, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> So which bedroom is the one where the MCU magic happened?


 
Both them rooms are proper _minging_. And he should invest in some sort of radiator covers or something. Those naked rads just aren't in keeping with the look he's gone for.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 19, 2013)

JHE said:


> Apron won't want to admit it, but all his 'fuck off', 'go away', 'don't post here', 'don't come back', 'lock yourself in a cupboard' stuff is all part of his training programme. Like an ever-sparing, ever-jogging, jab-jab-jab, skip-skip boxer preparing for the big fight, Apron is preparing for his big break - the finals of the World's Bossiest Anarchist Contest. Forget "failed authoritarian". I mean forget "failed". No way! The boy's a contender!



You teaming up with the Dexterlamist slime? How the mighty have fallen.


----------



## JHE (Aug 19, 2013)

I don't join teams on the internet.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 20, 2013)

It's rugger at school all over again. You get picked _last_. For the goalie as well. Even though they don't have goalies in rugby. Probably. Rugby buggery though, it's character building if naught else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Has a massive house. Lays down rugs that look like 1970s pub carpets. Fail.


 
Nah, just more affluence, 'cos they look like genuine handmade carpets, not the Axminster rip-offs (colours are duller on the high-ticket ones because they're done with vegetable-based dyes that eventually fade from exposure to sunlight, rather than aniline dyes, which keep their colour regardless of UV exposure).  He probably got them off one of his many Middle Eastern contacts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You teaming up with the Dexterlamist slime? How the mighty have fallen.


 
JHE was never "mighty"!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2013)

JHE said:


> I don't join teams on the internet.


 
Plus, no-one wants you, and you don't care.


----------



## barney_pig (Aug 20, 2013)

Where's the cupboard with the male porn vid and bottle of whisky?
(Btw my ipad spellcheck insists on adding an e to whisky)


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You teaming up with the Dexterlamist slime? How the mighty have fallen.


 
Enough of your silver tongue.


----------



## dominion (Aug 22, 2013)

Galloway has outdone himself now.....

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/an-indefatigable-obstacle-to-peace-in.html

Galloway is a hate monger.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 22, 2013)

dominion said:


> Galloway has outdone himself now.....
> 
> http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/an-indefatigable-obstacle-to-peace-in.html
> 
> Galloway is a hate monger.


Fucks Sake!


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2013)

A 26 second edit of a speech?


----------



## JHE (Aug 22, 2013)

dominion said:


> Galloway has outdone himself now.....
> 
> http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/an-indefatigable-obstacle-to-peace-in.html
> 
> Galloway is a hate monger.


 

Hmm, an odd mix.

1. I have to say, I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that the murderous Baathist tyrants in Syria are responsible for using chemical weapons. Perhaps it was some section of the anti-Baathist insurgents, some bunch of murderous, Sharia-mongering tyrants, maybe, as GGG says, al-Q. At the moment, we really don't know who it was.

2. His attempt to blame Israel is nasty demagogic shit, calculated to go down well with those many Muslims who are convinced that the wicked Jews are behind pretty much everything bad.


----------



## dominion (Aug 22, 2013)

The Telegraph & Argus reports that 5 of his Respect Councillors have quit to sit as independents.

The point of the edit was to highlight his ridiculous attempt to promote a theory that Israel was behind the attacks. Utter nonsense. The man has no redeeming features.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2013)

the 26 second edited clip claims to be youtube but isn't, what's that about 

Oh...and the point of the edit is to stop people seeing the whole thing and making their own minds up.  Galloway's done many things...a 26 second speech isn't one of them.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Aug 22, 2013)

dominion said:


> Galloway has outdone himself now.....
> 
> http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/an-indefatigable-obstacle-to-peace-in.html
> 
> Galloway is a hate monger.


 
Here's an article by Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society defending the recent Egyptian military coup and subsequents massacres by Al-Sisi that I found reproduce entirely on, wait for it, Howie's corner. Here's some choice cuts:

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/egyptians-are-in-urgent-need-of.html



> Today, security forces have cleared two camps in Cairo occupied by protestors demanding the reinstatement of deposed Islamist President Mohamed Mursi. There are conflicting reports about how many citizens have been killed in this latest violence.


 
That's it. That's the only reference to any violence at all taking place as civilain protestors have been massacred by the good guy secularists. Some more?



> Political chaos has ensued ever since Mohamed Morsi was ousted by army following massive public protests against his rule and efforts to find a peaceful resolution appear to be leading nowhere.
> But one thing is clear. Democratic elections alone will not restore stability for the people of Egypt.
> Before any election takes place, the rules of engagement need to be established. For these rules to be fair for all, Egyptians must adopt a secular constitution. Without it, the corrosive 'winner takes all' approach attitude will prevail, leaving minorities oppressed by the religious will of those in political power.


You could make the exact same justification for Assad beating the Islamists in Syria. And infact Al-Sisi's recent appearances in Egypt and the addresses the Egyptian military dictatorship have made about "fighting terrorism" could have been taken word for word from Assad's speeches 18 months ago.

I can't take people seriously who justify dictatorships and massacres in the name of secularism. They are out of one side of their mouth defending a dicatorship against the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and with the other attacking Galloway for defending the secular Syrian state against the Islamists in Syria, far more violent and dangerous Islamists than the Muslim Brotherhood I might add. Why the double standard?

Now seeing George Galloway on Iranian state TV claiming (with no real evidence) that Israel carried out the weapons attack is a perfect example of what type of scumbag Galloway is, how he's quite capable of being hired out by all and sundry to pump anti-semitic innuendo out into the media, but let's get it right - so far no-one actually knows who's carried out this chemical weapons attack in eastern Damascus (I refer you to this excellent article by Patrick Cockburn in today's Indepedent) yet howie's corner have implicitly accepted without any question the story that it was the Syrian govt who carried it, the primary source for which is YouTube video's and Al-Arabiya, the state funded news broadcaster of Saudi Arabia. Considering the the invective that gets spent on howie's corner denouncing the Saudi government for it's brutality and censorship it's astonishing that they would then use Al-Arabiya as a source, without referencing it no less, in this blog. Here you have the Saudi's and the Howie's corner harry's place new atheist lot singing from the same hymnsheet.

This quote too from the Howie's Corner blog



> Who on earth is he trying to kid? The Israelis are putting weapons of mass destruction into the hands of Al-Qaeda? An organisation that seeks the destruction of the Jewish state, and impose an Islamist world dictatorship?


 
I agree that Galloways comments are laced with anti-semitism but once again, let's get it right, Israel _is_ giving military and financial support to the rebels in Syria, along with the USA France and Great Briain and a host of other nations. This isn't in dispute. The idea that Israel would knowingly supply the Islamist rebels with chemical weapons is extremely far-fetched - the last thing they want is Islamists with chemical weapons on their northern border, but all the same the US and Israeli are already deeply involved in this conflict and are picking sides, Israel has even launched airstrikes into Syrian territory and attacked Syrian govt arms depot's, the only difference is the semantic quibble that airstrikes don't constitute "weapons of mass destruction" oh so that's ok as long as Israel is only using "Weapons of medium-to-light destruction" to aid the rebels and bring down Assad we can completely ignore that, and give the impression that Israel is somehow fighting against the Islamist rebels in Syria.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2013)

Here's another youtube vid by the same guy...it has a self-proclaimed Palestine terrorist who was planning jihad in America...on the Bill O'Reilly show.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> the 26 second edited clip claims to be youtube but isn't, what's that about
> 
> Oh...and the point of the edit is to stop people seeing the whole thing and making their own minds up. Galloway's done many things...a 26 second speech isn't one of them.


 
Apart from being on youtube of course.

Are the claims he makes in the vid among the many things that he has done?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Here's another youtube vid by the same guy...it has a self-proclaimed Palestine terrorist who was planning jihad in America...on the Bill O'Reilly show.




You mean a video uploaded to youtube by someone else.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from being on youtube of course.


I didn't say it wasn't on youtube, I said the clip claimed to be youtube but wasn't.  It was done so you couldn't have a quick look at the other videos by the same (youtube) poster, one of which I put on my last post.

dominion merely posted some garbage, perhaps he/she should post the whole speech instead of this kiddy, edited bullshit

The one I posted was a more fair reflection of the youtube poster's intentions, imo.  A pro-israeli pro-american load of shite.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

dexter said:
			
		

> the 26 second edited clip claims to be youtube but isn't, what's that about


 



			
				dexter said:
			
		

> I didn't say it wasn't on youtube, I said the clip claimed to be youtube but wasn't


 
What? What does 'be youtube' mean here then?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You mean a video uploaded to youtube by someone else.


 
youtube gallowaywatch collection

I don't think so. Exactly the same uploader.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> I don't think so. Exactly the same uploader.




Or again, a video uploaded by someone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Oh...and the point of the edit is to stop people seeing the whole thing and making their own minds up. Galloway's done many things...a 26 second speech isn't one of them.


 
I'll ask again dexter:



> Are the claims he makes in the vid among the many things that he has done?


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2013)

I'll need to see the whole thing.  Context and all that.  Not avoiding anything, just saying I want to see the whole thing.  I've looked and can't see it.

I doubt I'll get it from a youtube poster who has 250 vids, all anti-Galloway.  The best one being the bill o'reilly one I posted....no-one has anything to say about that. 

Anyway you owe me an apology for calling me a sex pest, apologise.   Last chance.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

Nice deflection. _It's not on youtube_ (oh yes it is) _and the person who posted it on youtube _(no they didn't - never mind how that undermines your first claim) _also did this_ (no they didn't). And yeah, you're not avoiding anything.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nice deflection. _It's not on youtube_ (oh yes it is) _and the person who posted it on youtube _(no they didn't - never mind how that undermines your first claim) _also did this_ (no they didn't). And yeah, you're not avoiding anything.


 
Pay attention....dominion's post #275 linking to the video...has a youtube tag for twitter above it, not a link to the vid....

the vid may be on youtube but the one in the link is not...

...because if you find the youtube one it's 250 anti-galloway vids by the same poster...gallowaywatch.

There's no deflection, I wasn't engaging with you, I was explaining.   Bye.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Pay attention....dominion's post #275 linking to the video...has a youtube tag for twitter above it, not a link to the vid....
> 
> the vid may be on youtube but the one in the link is not...
> 
> ...


 
It gets better.Post #275 does not have a "youtube tag for twitter" (whatever that is anyway) in it at all. The vid in the link wasn't uploaded by the person you went on to claim had uploaded it, nor were the other videos that you claimed they had uploaded. I'm the one explaining this to you.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 23, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Pay attention....dominion's post #275 linking to the video...has a youtube tag for twitter above it, not a link to the vid....
> 
> the vid may be on youtube but the one in the link is not...
> 
> ...


I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about with this youtube thing, or why it would matter. 

No doubt the person behind the website is an awful shit, but that doesn't change what Galloway said, and yes context is important but unless he was actually saying something along the lines of: 'there are some really stupid things being said about this chemical attack such as ...' it's difficult to see how context can really change the meaning of what he said.


----------



## norwood (Aug 23, 2013)




----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2013)

that beard is an act of hypocrisy- just for men


----------



## The Pale King (Aug 25, 2013)

I think that is the whole video of the clip that was discussed above. I came across it on the Spectator site, thought I'd post it up here. The relevant section is from about 22 mins. I think the context is Carla Del Ponte's investigation into the Syrian rebels using chemical weapons.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, just more affluence, 'cos they look like genuine handmade carpets, not the Axminster rip-offs (colours are duller on the high-ticket ones because they're done with vegetable-based dyes that eventually fade from exposure to sunlight, rather than aniline dyes, which keep their colour regardless of UV exposure). * He probably got them off one of his many Middle Eastern contacts*.



or bought one in a carpet shop when he was out there . Less dramatic admittedly, but still possible .


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm sure there's plenty to fault the guy for, but he's a thorn in the side of the establishment and so I feel positively if only for that. If he was an obvious crook or bully or peddler of evil doctrines I'd be less well disposed, but I haven't been convinced of that.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I agree that Galloways comments are laced with anti-semitism .



except they plainly arent at any stage whatsoever. Theres zero innuendo there either . Basically what yourself and others are saying is that to allege zionist involvement in dirty tricks and false flag events in Syria is anti semitic simply because zionists, more often than not, happen to be jews . Which is a completely bogus argument . 
They and the jihadists and their Saudi backers share the same primary enemy , Iran and its allies . No other intelligence agency in the world knows syria better or has more intelligence agents active in Syria than Mossad . Going back many decades . Theyve no reason to fear the jihadists attacking them simply because the saudis wont permit it, as evidenced by the fact that despite there being tens of thousands of them running about like lunatics armed to the teeth on Israels borders ..whether syria or lebanon..theyve done absolutely zip to trouble Israel in all that time . Theres little dispute theyve been logistically aiding the jihadists for quite some time and , most importantly,  if you want a false flag operation carried out properly and professionally  then Mossad are most certainly the people to go to . Take down Assad you take down Hezbollah and contain Iran well away from Israels borders . Maybe even draw Iran in and finally get the pretext for the US launching an all out military offensive against them . The zionists have more to gain from this than anyone else and more motivation than anyone else . And more ability to do it than anyone else .
Theres much more reason to suspect their involvement in dirty tricks than anyone else and its got damn all to do with any prejudice against their religion .

The idea that Mossad wouldnt supply AQ with chemicals is as silly as the view the western powers wouldnt supply them with MANPADS, or act as their airforce . Very silly indeed . Galloways theory might not be provable but its a quite likely explanation . It makes a damn sight more sense than Assad deliberately putting his entire nation and all the recent political, diplomatic  and military gains at severe risk just to gas a few rebels in some back street of no great strategic  importance . Doing the one thing he cant afford to do when he doesnt need to do it at the worst possible time to do it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Theres zero innuendo there either . Basically what yourself and others are saying is that to allege zionist involvement in dirty tricks and false flag events in Syria is anti semitic simply because zionists, more often than not, happen to be jews . Which is a completely bogus argument .



Yeah I'm saying that to allege that Israel is to blame for chemical weapons attacks with absolutely no evidence to back it up whatsoever on Iranian state TV is pretty clear anti-semitic innuendo. You can call it anti-Israeli racism or a secularised non-religious form of bigotry if you prefer but let's not beat about the bush.  Did Galloway produce any evidence at all that Israel/Mossad/The Zionists were responsible for this? Have you got any evidence that this is the case btw? I didn't notice any in your incoherent ramblings.

I did notice you keep referring to the state of Israel as "The Zionists" which is also a trademark of any white nationalist/neo nazi. It makes 'em sound much more evil, don't you think? Do they meet in a castle? Or in a hollowed out volcano in a remotre pacific island? And perform child sacrifice too?

On the balance of probabilities I'd say it is far more likely Assad's regime used chemical weapons than the Israeli's in conjunction with al-qeaeda staged it. The evidence of Assad's involvement is pretty limited and patchy I grant you, such is the difficulty in finding out what's going on in Syria, but it's much more compelling than the utterly evidence-free case you've put forward here blaming Israel for it.

It's a bit too late at night for me to pick through that word for word but it's a remarkably stupid post even by your pitiable standards. I'll pick one or two choice comments then go to bed.



Casually Red said:


> They and the jihadists and their Saudi backers share the same primary enemy , Iran and its allies .



citation needed. Which jihadists? There are hundreds of different jihadi groups, not all of them funded by Saudi btw. Many with different aims and goals, depending on a myriad number of factors. You're just plain wrong there.



Casually Red said:


> no other intelligence agency in the world knows syria better or has more intelligence agents active in Syria than Mossad



citation needed. The omniscience of Mossad is a routine fixture in anti-semitic conspiracy theories that claim a cabal of Zionists run the world. Galloway pumps this trope out on Iranian state TV and you lap it up uncritically. David Duke would love you.



Casually Red said:


> Theyve no reason to fear the jihadists attacking them simply because the saudis wont permit it



You might be slightly exagerating the control the Saudi's have over the "jihadi's" and yet again you're implying the Jihadi's are one coherent enemy force totally controlled by Saudi Arabia when in actual fact there are hundreds and hundreds of seperate jihadi and islamist groups operating in Syria being funded by numerous countries and individuals. Some of them aren't funded at all and survive via looting the population.



Casually Red said:


> Theres little dispute theyve been logistically aiding the jihadists for quite some time and , most importantly, if you want a false flag operation carried out properly and professionally then Mossad are most certainly the people to go to



And that proves it must be Mossad who carried out this attack. Case closed. Who needs evidence when you've got baseless speculation, eh? We have proof that Israel is giving small arms and other aid to some (not all) rebels. We don't have proof that Israel used chemical weapons in a false flag operation. Are you channeling Jazzz?

Israel gives apples to the jihadi's, they must also be giving them oranges too. They're the same thing right, fruit!



Casually Red said:


> The idea that Mossad wouldnt supply AQ with chemicals is as silly as the view the western powers wouldnt supply them with MANPADS, or act as their airforce . Very silly indeed



Why would Israel give weapons of mass destruction to people who are sworn to destroy them? Oh yeah that's right the Saudi Arabian govt controls all the world's jihadi's and has absolute authority over how they act at all times, and their love of Israel isn't one of convenience based on US pressure and geopolitics but is in fact utterly sincere and based on the natural allegience that all wahhabist theocracies have with Israel.




Casually Red said:


> Galloways theory might not be provable but its a quite likely explanation.



That's a sentence worthy of Jazzz himself 

It's not likely at all it's fucking stupid. He's said it because he's allowed to get away with more explicit anti-semitism on Iranian TV than he is here.



Casually Red said:


> It makes a damn sight more sense than Assad deliberately putting his entire nation and all the recent political, diplomatic and military gains at severe risk just to gas a few rebels in some back street of no great strategic importance . Doing the one thing he cant afford to do when he doesnt need to do it at the worst possible time to do it.



It's really not. On the balance of probability it's far more likely the Assad govt carried out this chemical attack than evidence-free Mossad/Al-Qeada false flag theory you've put forward (although I'd stress that doesn't mean I know for a fact it was the Syrian govt that carried it out, just compared to your theory) Just on the basis that we _know_ that the Assad govt has a large chemical weapons stash, we _know_ he has artillery teams in the north of Damascus within range of Ghouta that can deliver those weapons. We don't know that about the Syrian rebels, we don't even know if they ever had any large amounts of weaponsied chemical weapons let alone that they're capable of using them in a organised military manner. We have even less evidence that Mossad was secretly behind it all pulling the strings.

I agree that it's from our armchairs thousands of miles away it makes little sense for Assad to use chemical weapons, but what the fuck do we know about what's going on from day to day in Damascus? At the time I was perplexed by it, because there's a lot of compelling reasons why he shouldn't have used chemical weapons, but just because it's perplexing doesn't make it impossible, does it? Ghouta isn't a strategically unimportant at all, the whole east side of Damascus is crucially important strategically, and btw you're really exposing your ignorance about strategy and security when you come out with shite like this to defend your beloved Assad.

There's also reports that there were US special forces in the area of Ghouta at the time of the attack. And there's also reports that the Syrian govt is starting to buckle under the strain of the civil war, something predicted many months ago and long overdue tbh. This provides a much more compelling reason to use chemical weapons than anything you've said, although it doesn't act as proof, as a working theory it's much better than what Galloways saying. Using chemical weapons as a warning to the US not to intervene is a whole lot more realistic than claiming (with no evidence at all to back it up) that the Zionists did it. The Syrian state starting to collapse and a rogue military commander ordering the strike is also more likely that your version of events.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> to allege that Israel is to blame for chemical weapons attacks with absolutely no evidence to back it up whatsoever on Iranian state TV is pretty clear anti-semitic innuendo.


And yet, in the western media, it's taken as already settled that the Syrian regime were responsible. Also based on no evidence. To suggest there is another culprit, that it would in fact better suit the purposes of another state is just to indulge in the same rhetoric that we're getting 24/7 from almost every western voice. But the moment anyone points a finger at Israel, it's standard practice to claim anti-semitism (or in America's case, anti-Americanism, and so on).


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> And yet, in the western media, it's taken as already settled that the Syrian regime were responsible. Also based on no evidence. To suggest there is another culprit, that it would in fact better suit the purposes of another state is just to indulge in the same rhetoric that we're getting 24/7 from almost every western voice. But the moment anyone points a finger at Israel, it's standard practice to claim anti-semitism (or in America's case, anti-Americanism, and so on).



So how come it's ok to accuse Israel of using chemical weapons against civilians with no evidence at all (as Galloway and CR was doing) but it's wrong for the western media to accuse Assad of doing it with very patchy evidence. Do you not see a double standard there?

I think it's anti-semitic to try holding "Zionists" responsible for terrorist attacks and war crimes when you've got absolutely no evidence to say they did. It's evidence of a anti-semitic mindset to hold them responsible by default for these sorts of things, apparently Israel being a Jewish state is evidence enough for some people that they must be the ones responsible.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> So how come it's ok to accuse Israel of using chemical weapons against civilians with no evidence at all ... but it's wrong for the western media to accuse Assad of doing it.


I wouldn't put it like that. Both sides are dealing in the same rhetoric. But blaming Israel it seems, is not only unacceptable it displays an automatic bias that raises the spectre of all sorts of ghastly conspiratorial motives. The charge of anti-semitism is a shallow knee jerk reaction used to shut down an argument before it is even examined.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> I wouldn't put it like that.



I'd put it like that. Why not try answering the question? How come it's ok to hold Israel responsible for this chemical weapons attack despite a total lack of proof, but not Assad? The evidence implicating Assad's govt is far stronger than the evidence free case that Mossad faked it to frame the unimpeachably innocent and cuddly Assad.



white rabbit said:


> But blaming Israel it seems, is not only unacceptable it displays an automatic bias that raises the spectre of all sorts of ghastly conspiratorial motives. The charge of anti-semitism is a shallow knee jerk reaction used to shut down an argument before it is even examined.



Blaming Israel is unacceptable because there's absolutely no evidence at all to suggest they did it. CR couldn't even provide a convincing rationale for them to do it either. Unless the fact that they're a Jewish state itsself acts as proof?

I didn't "shut down the argument" I engaged with it head on at length and pointed out some of the more obvious reasons why it was stupid. I could've done in more detail but it's like arguing with a child and it's too late for that. The argument CR is making that blames Mossad for the chemical weapons attack has nothing to back it up whatsoever in terms of proof, and depends on obvious falsehoods that anyone with any sort of knowledge of international affairs should be aware of to even be tenable (such as the belief in the uniquely evil and omnipotent ability of Mossad to carry out false flags at will and get away with it, the belief that Saudi Arabia is direcly in control of every jihadist group in Syria and can dictate their future actions etc. this stuff belongs on Shitfront not here)

I don't think CR is anti-semitic, but the ability to hold Israel responsible for any atrocity no matter how far-fetched is a hallmark of anti-semites, and when he repeats these tropes he's (perhaps unwittingly) regurgitating textbook anti-semitism. He's repeating these tropes probably beacuse he's the sort of parochial reactionary macho arsehole who likes to stick up for any hardcase strongman dictators and murderers. I mean he never let the Omagh bombing get in the way of his unabashed support and admiration for dissident republicans, why would he let the deaths of thousands of civilians by chemical weapons stop him from backing his beloved Assad?


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 4, 2013)

CR comes back after a ban for posting antisemitic bollocks and immediately posts antisemitic bollocks.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Why would Israel give weapons of mass destruction to people who are sworn to destroy them?



Personally I doubt that Israel would hand over wmd to jihadists just to do what they feel like with them (although that wouldn't necessarily mean that Israeli or other special forces weren't involved in this atrocity).

But a point I think is important to remember is that Al Qaida and *most* other jihadi groups (and obviously there have been hundreds so I'm talking broadly here) have been surprisingly uninterested in Israel and the Palestinians. AQ & Bin Laden - in the period leading up to the twin towers attack - had almost never (it may actually be never but I can't remember for sure) mentioned Israel and certainly never attacked any Israeli or jewish targets. They were obsessed with getting the US out of Saudi, the overthrow of the House of Saud and the unification of the Umma (although they often seemed to forget that the largest part of that weren't arabs). After the Twin Towers and the massive US reaction, there was a bit of scrabbling around for allies and suddenly there were a few references to BL's "brothers and sisters in Palestine" in his video messages and a few rather squalid little attacks on soft jewish targets by AQ affiliates - I remember some hotelier in Uganda getting killed. But it was all pretty small beer.

If I was in Mossad and planning interference by proxy in a neighbouring country (which has been a standard operating policy of Israel since its birth) I think, based on the history, I'd be pretty happy to use jihadists.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Also Delroy Booth  - I don't see that last post of CR's as being anti-semitic.

You say there's "no rationale" for Israel to do so - and the whole "it was Israel" case on the Ghouta gassing is pretty unconvincing at the moment - but there'll be no doubt that Israel is pulling as many levers as it can to get the US/UK/France axis into Syria and that will surely include dirty tricks if they seem appropriate.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> If I was in Mossad and planning interference by proxy in a neighbouring country (which has been a standard operating policy of Israel since its birth) I think, based on the history, I'd be pretty happy to use jihadists.



Y'see that's quite right, but then how does that go from _"Israel might be willing to work with certain jihadists in certain times if it thinks it's in their interest"_ to _"Israel is responsible for enabling jihadists to carry out the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta in order to frame Assad and trigger western intervention" _there's quite a bit of difference between the two. We have evidence of the first statement, infact the Israeli's have more or less tacitly accepted that they've aided certain Islamist groups in Syria, but the second one is quite a bit more specific and no evidence exists at all that it's the case. The second one is an extremely risky and unspeakably evil thing to do that could potentially backfire on them.

I know AQ have historically not attacked Israel directly that often, but there's many many reasons for that. One of them you alluded to - Israel isn't such a soft target, AQ usually go after softer targets. It doesn't change the fact they deeply hate the state of Israel. And not all the jihadi groups involved in Syria right now are AQ. All it would take is one commander of one militia wanting to make a name for himself to do something crazy for the whole thing to backfire terribly. It's very risky and very stupid.

If Israel were that desperate to remove Assad that they'd be willing to give WMD's to Jihadists sworn to the destruction of Israel, then why don't they just carpet bomb Damascus? Why run the risk of letting some very nasty islamist lunatics get their hands on chemical weapons when they could use conventional military force to achieve the same objective? Just letting the situation carry on in stalement, with Israel's enemies slowly killing each other over a period of years and decades, is a better option than handing over chemical weapons to a chaotic mixture of deeply anti-Israel islamist militias.

Whilst it's true that most al-qeada attacks have avoided Israel, I don't see that as proof of what CR was suggesting, that the Saudi Arabians effectively control the actions of al-qeada and the islamist militia's in Syria. Anyone with any knowledge at all of al-qeada knows that their bitterest enemies are the house of Saud. There's a lot of different jihadist groups in Syria right now, some of them are pro-saudi, some of them are anti-saudi.



co-op said:


> Also Delroy Booth  - I don't see that last post of CR's as being anti-semitic.



Yeah Casually Red seems more the "enemies enemy is my friend" type rather than an ideological anti-semite. He's probably an idiot who is easily-impressed by macho anti-imperialist strongmen more than anything else. One of those very right-wing Irish nationalists who for all the lipservice they pay to socialism, anti-imperialism etc would be a rampant Tory had they been born on this side of the water.

I think he's just using crude anti-imperialism to try and blame Israel rather than push a specifically anti-semitic agenda. However some of the things he's come out and presuppositions his ideas are based on are identical to well known anti-semitic tropes you'd more commonly find on scumfront. Such as the belief in the supernatural all-powerful abilities of Mossad to do whatever they want unimpeded, that they're behind every atrocity, that if you even say the word three times they'll appear like Beetlejuice/Biggie Smalls and whisk you away to their lair etc etc.

It's completely inaccurate. Overstating the power of the Israeli state is common amongst all anti-semites, it's a continuation of the "Jews running the world" stuff with a veneer of IR to make it semi-respectable, but doesn't actually correspond to reality. This is stuff that you'll find on neo-nazi forums but in real life Mossad aren't quite the all-powerful puppetmasters CR makes out. That's just one example of where he's flirting with anti-semitism, whether he's doing it deliberately or out of stupidity is a trivial difference. When your anti-imperialism involves uncritically basing your assumptions on certain anti-semitic ideas like that you need to re-assess your politics.



co-op said:


> You say there's "no rationale" for Israel to do so - and the whole "it was Israel" case on the Ghouta gassing is pretty unconvincing at the moment - but there'll be no doubt that Israel is pulling as many levers as it can to get the US/UK/France axis into Syria and that will surely include dirty tricks if they seem appropriate.



It's not just unconvincing though, it's non-existent. I'm not saying that the case that Assad's govt did it is strong, just that it's far more convincing than the idea Mossad faked it to provoke a war.  And "dirty tricks" is pretty vague, do you mean murdering thousands of people in a chemical weapons raid? It sounds a lot like "Mossad did 9/11 to trigger the Iraq war" to me.

Anyway this is a massive derail so excuse me if I don't keep coming back to answer every point, i'd rather put this stuff about Syria in the Syria thread than here.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> But a point I think is important to remember is that Al Qaida and *most* other jihadi groups (and obviously there have been hundreds so I'm talking broadly here) have been surprisingly uninterested in Israel and the Palestinians



Considering that faction of Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for rocket attacks on Israel just a fortnight ago, and that their stated aims include  "to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem]...from their grip, in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim", can I ask just how you define "uninterested"?

Anyway, 'tis good of Galloway to demonstrate yet again what a complete shitheel he is, and that there is no scenario he would not attempt to gain from.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> but there'll be no doubt that Israel is pulling as many levers as it can to get the US/UK/France axis into Syria and that will surely include dirty tricks if they seem appropriate.



Did you mean levers or strings.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Considering that faction of Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for rocket attacks on Israel just a fortnight ago, and that their stated aims include  "to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem]...from their grip, in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim", can I ask just how you define "uninterested"?



Ok so this rocket attack is a perfect example of how uninterested AQ has traditionally been. Firstly because it's just about the only direct attack ever on the state of Israel by an AQ affiliate (and of course there are literally hundreds of such entities so there are always some). AQ has been active in one form or another for nearly 20 years. That's hardly a sustained campaign.

But secondly and more relevantly here; this rocket attack is clearly an attempt to provoke a border war between Israel and Hezbollah and thus put Hezbollah in the position of a war on two fronts and force them out of Syria. In other words it was done by AQ jihadis in order to undermine Hezbollah, not to attack Israel. To characterise this attack as "anti-Israeli" is daft; Israel is utterly secondary here.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Did you mean levers or strings.



This is pathetic. 



Everyone knows that jews have bloodstains on their hands from when they drank the blood of ickle christian babies.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> Ok so this rocket attack is a perfect example of how uninterested AQ has traditionally been. Firstly because it's just about the only direct attack ever on the state of Israel by an AQ affiliate (and of course there are literally hundreds of such entities so there are always some). AQ has been active in one form or another for nearly 20 years. That's hardly a sustained campaign.
> 
> But secondly and more relevantly here; this rocket attack is clearly an attempt to provoke a border war between Israel and Hezbollah and thus put Hezbollah in the position of a war on two fronts and force them out of Syria. In other words it was done by AQ jihadis in order to undermine Hezbollah, not to attack Israel. To characterise this attack as "anti-Israeli" is daft; Israel is utterly secondary here.



Only for the time being. They want to take over Syria and Lebanon first before making an attempt to take on the Israeli state. Israel is a military superpower, just because AQ don't rush in head first to attack them at every opportunity just reflects the balance of power. They're not stupid.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Only for the time being. They want to take over Syria and Lebanon first before making an attempt to take on the Israeli state. Israel is a military superpower, just because AQ don't rush in head first to attack them at every opportunity just reflects the balance of power. They're not stupid.



Seriously Delroy, I think you're a well-informed and thoughtful poster but this is silly - what about THE defining AQ attack on the Twin Towers? How well did that reflect the balance of power. If they were interested in the balance of power they'd have given up long ago. Moreover you will really struggle to find even anti-Israeli rhetoric in all the jihadist mumbo-jumbo (and I know that western-based, uk-based islamist groups often DO use this rhetoric - but they are a different cup of tea altogether).


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth - I've just read your long post and I haven't really got the legs to deal with this all either right now but you've obviously got some beef with CR but to dismiss his post as anti-semitic is just wrong imo; it isn't. (and yes I know he made an obviously anti-semitic 'joke' in the past). He's also one of the best informed posters on these topics and routinely brings new and interesting information to them. To dismiss him as "silly" is - er - silly. The Mossad claim for Ghouta is probably wrong and my personal guess is that Israel - for once - is less gung ho about this particular operation than the US, because they know they may end up living next to a pretty dodgy state of affairs if (or rather when, now that the yanks are in) Assad falls. Apart from anything else if the whole "humanitarian" narrative really takes hold they might end up having to look after hundreds of thousands of refugees.

But the idea that they aren't involved in the FSA is clearly wrong - as you acknowledge. And to suggest it isn't anti-semitic even though anti-semites typically obsess about the hidden power of The Jews.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> Seriously Delroy, I think you're a well-informed and thoughtful poster but this is silly - what about THE defining AQ attack on the Twin Towers? How well did that reflect the balance of power. If they were interested in the balance of power they'd have given up long ago. Moreover you will really struggle to find even anti-Israeli rhetoric in all the jihadist mumbo-jumbo (and I know that western-based, uk-based islamist groups often DO use this rhetoric - but they are a different cup of tea altogether).



Different thing though. AQ have no ambitions to wipe the USA off the face of the earth and liberate the washington monument. Different kind of operation for a different enemy at a different time. They do have a stated desire to conquer Israel though.

I generally accept your point that AQ are more interested in other parts of the world, depending on events, than they are in living up these boasts about taking on Israel (much easier said than done) but at the same time don't just write off the things they say about wiping Israel off the face of the earth. It's not just empty rhetoric it's like their clause IV.* They wouldn't try it until they were in a strong enough position to, and I think that's what they're doing now, trying to overthrow various pro-western regimes in the ME, ultimately that of Saudi Arabia, and once they've united the ummah and built up some strength they'd have a go. Long-term strategy that. I don't fancy their chances mind.

EDIT *good chance for someone to crack a joke there. Where's Rory Bremner when you need him?


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Different thing though. AQ have no ambitions to wipe the USA off the face of the earth and liberate the washington monument. Different kind of operation for a different enemy at a different time. They do have a stated desire to conquer Israel though.
> 
> I generally accept your point that AQ are more interested in other parts of the world, depending on events, than they are in living up these boasts about taking on Israel (much easier said than done) but at the same time don't just write off the things they say about wiping Israel off the face of the earth. It's not just empty rhetoric it's like their clause IV.* They wouldn't try it until they were in a strong enough position to, and I think that's what they're doing now, trying to overthrow various pro-western regimes in the ME, ultimately that of Saudi Arabia, and once they've united the ummah and built up some strength they'd have a go. Long-term strategy that. I don't fancy their chances mind.
> 
> EDIT *good chance for someone to crack a joke there. Where's Rory Bremner when you need him?



Things change and I'm not up to date but for many years the standard AQ position was that 'the road to Jerusalem passes through Cairo', meaning that the pro-western arab govts, especially the Egyptian, had to fall before Palestine could be liberated. But even in their rhetoric about Palestine (which as I say was all for the far-flung future) they tended to bang on about the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and slag off the "crusaders" and "crusader states" not Israel, I can't even remember now whether they bothered with the whole "zionist entity" tag. Israel has just not been a big deal to AQ proper. Where are the AQ affiliates in Palestine? You'd think it would be prime recruiting ground.

Ironically I think your Clause 4 comparison is absolutely bang on the money, but mainly because I think most people completely misunderstand Clause 4. It was a completely pragmatic bit of electioneering by the LP trying to incorporate the millions of new "workers by brain" - ie women - who were going to be enfranchised in the upcoming election. It wasn't some great statement of eternal principle, it was a vote-grabber. Just so with Palestine to AQ; it's a way into islamism for 'ordinary people' on the Arab Street.

Anyway now we can really derail the thread by arguing about Clause 4.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> Ironically I think your Clause 4 comparison is absolutely bang on the money, but mainly because I think most people completely misunderstand Clause 4. It was a completely pragmatic bit of electioneering by the LP trying to incorporate the millions of new "workers by brain" - ie women - who were going to be enfranchised in the upcoming election. It wasn't some great statement of eternal principle, it was a vote-grabber. Just so with Palestine to AQ; it's a way into islamism for 'ordinary people' on the Arab Street.
> 
> Anyway now we can really derail the thread by arguing about Clause 4.



 I only realised that after I'd written it. 

I don't think that AQ's anti-israeli stance can be dismissed as pure rhetoric though. But I'll have to come back a bit later to discuss that I've got to hang some doors for my mam and I wanna get it done by the afternoon and not just procrastinate all day on here


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I only realised that after I'd written it.




Mission creep. Define your objectives. Exit strategy. Etc.




Delroy Booth said:


> I don't think that AQ's anti-israeli stance can be dismissed as pure rhetoric though. But I'll have to come back a bit later to discuss that I've got to hang some doors for my mam and I wanna get it done by the afternoon and not just procrastinate all day on here



Yep I waste too much time here already.

Besides jews don't persecute themselves you know. I'm busy busy busy!*


















*JOKE! I know you're not accusing me of owt here.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 4, 2013)

There was a link on the Facebook page of the Jewish socialist group and the poster commented: " this is a great exposition of how finance capital works, if you ignore the anti semitism at the end"
It is clear that CR is certainly not alone in allowing lazy antisemitic tropes infest his posts, but it wasn't right for that poster on JSG, and it isn't right here.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 4, 2013)

> I don't think CR is anti-semitic, but the ability to hold Israel responsible for any atrocity no matter how far-fetched is a hallmark of anti-semites,



White phosphorus bombing of a UN School in Gaza in 2009 an atrocity enough for you Delroy and all those who condemn it as a war crime anti-semites?


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 4, 2013)

audiotech said:


> White phosphorus bombing of a UN School in Gaza in 2009 an atrocity enough for you Delroy and all those who condemn it as a war crime anti-semites?


So does this gibberish mean Israel is therefore responsible for all crimes, or what?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> So does this gibberish mean Israel is therefore responsible for all crimes, or what?



Looks like it to me.

At least he didn't copy and paste it from wikipedia though.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It is clear that CR is certainly not alone in allowing lazy antisemitic tropes infest his posts, but it wasn't right for that poster on JSG, and it isn't right here.



Come off it - where is all this anti-semitism in CR's post? I haven't read the whole thread but if we're talking about the post 300 it just isn't anti-semitic in any way as far as I can see. I disagree with some of the content (although not the broad thrust of it, i.e. that Israel is perfectly capable of getting involved in a false flag op in Syria) but I just don't see the anti-semitism. 

This looks like false outrage based on disagreement with his politics.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 4, 2013)

Another accusation of Jewish involvement in false flag operations here.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1348-jewsblackdeath.asp
 Obviously not antisemitic, just disagreement with the politics


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Another accusation of Jewish involvement in false flag operations here.
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1348-jewsblackdeath.asp
> Obviously not antisemitic, just disagreement with the politics


And with more evidence than CR provided for his flight of fancy, signed confessions!


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Another accusation of Jewish involvement in false flag operations here.
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1348-jewsblackdeath.asp
> Obviously not antisemitic, just disagreement with the politics





Fucksake you're an idiot.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> Come off it - where is all this anti-semitism in CR's post?



I did do quite a long post this morning going through some of the anti-semitic idea's he was parrotting earlier on. It would be a bit tedious to go through it sentence by sentence and index these things for your convenience. And this thread's derailed enough.

If it makes you feel any better it's more a case that he's basing some of his ideas on dodgy concepts that have a long established history of being associated with anti-semitism rather than overt anti-semitism in itself. And that I'm not sure it's fair to call him an anti-semite, just more of an idiot. (Although the fact he's come to the conclusion Israel is responsible for a chemical weapons attack that killed thousands of people without not a single scrap of evidence to support it should be setting off alarm bells in itself I would've thought.)


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

There are many possible reasons the chemical weapons attack happened. It could have been the Syrian regime, it could have been some other power, it could have be a group acting on its own behalf or at the behest of others. It could have been an accident. Frankly, all of these accounts sound rather far-fetched. The motivation feels alarmingly close to madness. But the theories can at least be considered without resorting to some accusation of political heresy. Invoking racial or sectarian prejudice merely muddies the arguments.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2013)

I think its more about WHERE he said it and what audience he was playing to.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Ok Delroy Booth  - I'll take on your big post a little but I have to say it's not got much in the way of real meat to it.



Delroy Booth said:


> I did notice you keep referring to the state of Israel as "The Zionists" which is also a trademark of any white nationalist/neo nazi. It makes 'em sound much more evil, don't you think? Do they meet in a castle? Or in a hollowed out volcano in a remotre pacific island? And perform child sacrifice too?



Using the term "zionist" or "the zionist entity" to describe the Israeli govt or the State of Israel is not a "trademark of any white nationalist/neo-nazi". If it's a trademark of anyone, it's of Palestinian groups fighting the occupation of their land. It is explicitly designed to attack the imperialist concept - zionism, and not "the jews". In other words it is specifically attempting to take religion out of the equation and put politics back in (in contra-distinction to the US/UK/Israel/France axis who routinely cast this as either 'ethnic' - arab vs israeli (meaning white) - or religious - moslem vs jew).

You can argue about how successfully this use of language achieves its aims but you cannot simply assert that the term zionist is 'anti-semitic'; rather it's *an attempt to be precisely the opposite*. I think it's pretty clear that where CR's use of the term is coming from is in this tradition.






Delroy Booth said:


> The omniscience of Mossad is a routine fixture in anti-semitic conspiracy theories that claim a cabal of Zionists run the world. Galloway pumps this trope out on Iranian state TV and you lap it up uncritically. David Duke would love you.





Delroy Booth said:


> And that proves it must be Mossad who carried out this attack. Case closed. Who needs evidence when you've got baseless speculation, eh? We have proof that Israel is giving small arms and other aid to some (not all) rebels. We don't have proof that Israel used chemical weapons in a false flag operation. Are you channeling Jazzz?





Delroy Booth said:


> Israel gives apples to the jihadi's, they must also be giving them oranges too. They're the same thing right, fruit!





Delroy Booth said:


> Why would Israel give weapons of mass destruction to people who are sworn to destroy them? Oh yeah that's right the Saudi Arabian govt controls all the world's jihadi's and has absolute authority over how they act at all times, and their love of Israel isn't one of convenience based on US pressure and geopolitics but is in fact utterly sincere and based on the natural allegience that all wahhabist theocracies have with Israel.







Delroy Booth said:


> That's a sentence worthy of Jazzz himself



I've already argued that many - maybe most - AQ jihadists have been remarkably disinterested in Israel - not uninterested but it's not been anywhere near as big an issue as it *should* have been. 

The rest of these points are just jeering really. The fact that there exists a jewish cabal "trope" doesn't mean that anyone saying Mossad might be behind the Ghouta attack is an anti-semite. It's an allegation unlikely to be true for all sorts of reasons but it's certainly not (a) anti-semitic, (b) impossible to be true. Re (b) note that it is very much in Israel's interests for the Assad regime to be attacked by the USA which gives it plausible motive to do or encourage this kind of thing. Although just to repeat for the umpteenth time I think it's unlikely. But believing it possible, or even likely to be the work of Israel is not evidence of anti-semitism. 

Your case is proper weak for this kind of allegation and it's an allegation that utterly mars this debate - routinely.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> There are many possible reasons the chemical weapons attack happened. It could have been the Syrian regime, it could have been some other power, it could have be a group acting on its own behalf or at the behest of others. It could have been an accident. Frankly, all of these accounts sound rather far-fetched. The motivation feels alarmingly close to madness. But the theories can at least be considered without resorting to some accusation of political heresy. Invoking racial or sectarian prejudice merely muddies the arguments.



Theories can be considered without resorting to political heresy. Even when there's no evidence at all to back it up.

That's literally the logic that holocaust deniers and creationists use. well done.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Theories can be considered without resorting to political heresy. Even when there's no evidence at all to back it up.
> 
> That's literally the logic that holocaust deniers and creationists use. well done.


Is that thoughtcrime?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> It's evidence of a anti-semitic mindset to hold them responsible by default for these sorts of things, apparently Israel being a Jewish state is evidence enough for some people that they must be the ones responsible.



your talking shite chief


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> CR comes back after a ban for posting antisemitic bollocks and immediately posts antisemitic bollocks.



bollocks..i was never banned

you bollocks


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Another accusation of Jewish involvement in false flag operations here.
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/1348-jewsblackdeath.asp
> Obviously not antisemitic, just disagreement with the politics




Delroy Booth - do you think this post by barney_pig has any credibility? As I read it, s/he is saying that, on the basis of what I have posted on this thread, I am an anti-semite who would see the blood libel stuff as "not anti-semitic". 

I mean, it's so stupid that I can't take it seriously, but dragging this debate in this direction is a very good way to close down a discussion, e.g. if you disagree with someone else's politics (I'm guessing barney_pig is an anarchist who hates those anti-imperialist types like CR). 

It completely devalues the meaning of the term anti-semitic.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

[quote="Delroy Booth, post: 12524959, member


> I did notice you keep referring to the state of Israel as "The Zionists" which is also a trademark of any white nationalist/neo nazi. It makes 'em sound much more evil, don't you think? Do they meet in a castle? Or in a hollowed out volcano in a remotre pacific island? And perform child sacrifice too?



no, as an extreme nationalistic, militaristic and ethno elitist bunch of criminals they usually meet on land stolen from natives theyve previously ethnically cleansed in persuit of their mission of lebensraum. In defiance of numerous UN resolutions and International law .

Its because of that very illegality and utter lack of legitimacy their opponents prefer to call them zionists rather than use the state of Israel as formal term conveying formal recognition of their enterprises as having legal legitimacy .

This was just one UN resolution that underlines that decision .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_3379

And by the way they..the zionists.. also  refer not only to their racist, uber nationalist , supremacist ideology as zionism , they refer to many of their own zionist organisations as zionist as well .

But only an idiot like you could call someone anti semitic for saying zionist .


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth and Casually Red  - stop fighting dammit, you are two of my favourite posters!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> Using the term "zionist" or "the zionist entity" to describe the Israeli govt or the State of Israel is not a "trademark of any white nationalist/neo-nazi". If it's a trademark of anyone, it's of Palestinian groups fighting the occupation of their land.



The term Zionist is problematic because not all Israeli's are Zionists, not all Zionists are Israeli, not all Zionists are Jewish, and so on. It's inaccurate and reductionist especially when you're blaming that group of people for mass murder. When you're referring specifically to the actions of the Israeli state, rather than the much more nebulous wider Zionist movement, using the term "the Zionists" is not at all appropriate or accurate. Whether or not you consider the Israeli state a legitimate state when you're accusing that state of killing thousands of people it's important to be specific. At no point does CR distinguish between whether it's the Zionists who carried out the attack, or the Israeli state, or a particular part of the Israeli security apparatus Mossad. He uses these terms interchangably, which is what happens when these words are stripped of their proper meaning and reduced to secular euphemisms for "The Jews."

I know the origins of the term the Zionist entity and I know it's heritage, but you neglect to mention the term has also been fully incorporated into the lexicon of the neo-nazi far right as a euphemism for Jew.

I accept it's probably his own clumsy use of language and that he's looking at it from a (flawed) anti-imperialist viewpoint.



co-op said:


> The fact that there exists a jewish cabal "trope" doesn't mean that anyone saying Mossad might be behind the Ghouta attack is an anti-semite. It's an allegation unlikely to be true for all sorts of reasons but it's certainly not (a) anti-semitic, (b) impossible to be true.



Oh I disagree, the ability to blame Israel/Mossad/Zionists (all the same) for murdering thousands of people without any evidence at all is a generally a big sign that someone's either a) an idiot who believes any crap to justify the anti-imperialist struggle against the Zionist oppressor or b) an anti-semite lookign for any excuse to justify hating Israel as it's a Jewish state. I tend towards a) when I think about CR's reasoning. I'm not saying it's impossible either, what I'm asking is how does someone jump that conclusion without any evidence at all? When the logic behind why they would do so is so flimsy and easy to pull apart?

The ability to jump the conclusion that Israel is responsible for this heinous crime, and to reach that conclusion with absolutely fuck all evidence, is itself enough to get my alarm bells ringing.

Interestingly Russia seems to be modifying it's stance over this and according to Putin have said they would be willing to accept a UN resolution authorising military action as long as they're shown proper evidence it was Assad's government, a notable change in policy from only a few days ago when they were trying to claim it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia that carried out the attack (imo a much more likely scenario than Mossad doing it). Give it a few days because it might just be diplomat manoueverings but if Russia accepts it was Assad who carried out the attack do you think CR will change his mind?



co-op said:


> Re (b) note that it is very much in Israel's interests for the Assad regime to be attacked by the USA which gives it plausible motive to do or encourage this kind of thing. Although just to repeat for the umpteenth time I think it's unlikely. But believing it possible, or even likely to be the work of Israel is not evidence of anti-semitism.



Believing that's it's plausible is one thing, because even if it's incredibly far-fetched it's possible, but that's not what was said. He said it was more likely that Mossad did it than Assad, and that it simply being plausible is evidence enough to make that sort of accusation stick. So if I were to say I thought it was the Real IRA who bombed Ghouta, and laid out a flimsy set of reason why it could plausibly be them, however unlikely and outlandish it seems, then offered absolutely no evidence at all that it they did do it, would that be permissable too? As long as it's vaguely plausible that's all the evidence required to pin the blame on Israel it seems.

It's also in the UK's interests to see Assad attacked by the USA, does that mean we did it? It's in Turkey's interest too. Does that mean they did? And Jordan. The Lebanese Interior Defence Forces have just as much an interest in trying to provoke the overthrow of Assad as Israel, infact more in a lot of ways, but I didn't see anyone accusing them of being behind it. I could go on here but I think I've made my point


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> The term Zionist is problematic because not all Israeli's are Zionists, not all Zionists are Israeli, not all Zionists are Jewish, and so on. It's inaccurate and reductionist especially when you're blaming that group of people for mass murder. When you're referring specifically to the actions of the Israeli state, rather than the much more nebulous wider Zionist movement, using the term "the Zionists" is not at all appropriate or accurate. Whether or not you consider the Israeli state a legitimate state when you're accusing that state of killing thousands of people it's important to be specific. At no point does CR distinguish between whether it's the Zionists who carried out the attack, or the Israeli state, or a particular part of the Israeli security apparatus Mossad. He uses these terms interchangably, which is what happens when these words are stripped of their proper meaning and reduced to secular euphemisms for "The Jews."
> 
> I know the origins of the term the Zionist entity and I know it's heritage, but you neglect to mention the term has also been fully incorporated into the lexicon of the neo-nazi far right as a euphemism for Jew.
> 
> I accept it's probably his own clumsy use of language and that he's looking at it from a (flawed) anti-imperialist viewpoint.



But if you know the history of the term, but how can you leap to such an assumption that using the word zionist is a sign of anti-semitism? I mean ignoring the sloppy use of language of a bulletin board post, it was pretty clear what CR's intent was. You can think the whole anti-imperialist take is flawed but that doesn't mean this is anti-semitic. There are multiple kinds of zionism but the dominant thread is that which is identified with an aggressively imperialist policy by the state if Israel to its neighbours - a policy which would be consistent with the kind of allegation that CR/GG made. Sorry to use the I-word here but there really seems no alternative. 



Delroy Booth said:


> Oh I disagree, the ability to blame Israel/Mossad/Zionists (all the same) for murdering thousands of people without any evidence at all is a generally a big sign that someone's either a) an idiot who believes any crap to justify the anti-imperialist struggle against the Zionist oppressor or b) an anti-semite lookign for any excuse to justify hating Israel as it's a Jewish state. I tend towards a) when I think about CR's reasoning. I'm not saying it's impossible either, what I'm asking is how does someone jump that conclusion without any evidence at all? When the logic behind why they would do so is so flimsy and easy to pull apart?
> 
> The ability to jump the conclusion that Israel is responsible for this heinous crime, and to reach that conclusion with absolutely fuck all evidence, is itself enough to get my alarm bells ringing.



Well I certainly jumped to the conclusion that this whole gas attack was some kind of set up - and I don't believe that it'll be possible to have any real idea who or what was really behind this until after the dust settles on the whole Syrian civil war - and even then there'll be plenty of conspiracy allegations flying around. And I say that aware of the latest evidence which makes Assad look more likely to be the culprit. Every bit of evidence here is part of a propaganda war. 



Delroy Booth said:


> Interestingly Russia seems to be modifying it's stance over this and according to Putin have said they would be willing to accept a UN resolution authorising military action as long as they're shown proper evidence it was Assad's government, a notable change in policy from only a few days ago when they were trying to claim it was Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia that carried out the attack (imo a much more likely scenario than Mossad doing it).



Yes this is interesting but my guess is that they think they are less likely to lose Assad if they can get a watered down Security Council mandate for some pointless (but murderous) punishment slapping for a few Syrians somewhere by the UN. This could even be partly administered by Russia. It would stop the USA from effectively taking Syria over which seems to me to be the only way to read Obama's latest proclamations - or if it didn't stop it, it would make it much harder for the USA to charge straight in.



Delroy Booth said:


> Give it a few days because it might just be diplomat manoueverings but if Russia accepts it was Assad who carried out the attack do you think CR will change his mind?



Probably not.




Delroy Booth said:


> It's also in the UK's interests to see Assad attacked by the USA, does that mean we did it? It's in Turkey's interest too. Does that mean they did? And Jordan. The Lebanese Interior Defence Forces have just as much an interest in trying to provoke the overthrow of Assad as Israel, infact more in a lot of ways, but I didn't see anyone accusing them of being behind it. I could go on here but I think I've made my point



I think it's perfectly possible that anyone who would benefit from a US intervention would be involved in this gas attack (although I doubt the Lebanese are involved as I doubt the benefit to them).


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 4, 2013)

My point was reducto ad absurdum to show where Jews as poisoners as an anti Semitic trope comes from.
Also CR has form for Jew baiting which he is carrying on with


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

[quote="Delroy Booth, post: 12525629, 


> The term Zionist is problematic because not all Israeli's are Zionists, not all Zionists are Israeli, not all Zionists are Jewish, and so on. It's inaccurate and reductionist especially when you're blaming that group of people for mass murder. When you're referring specifically to the actions of the Israeli state, rather than the much more nebulous wider Zionist movement, using the term "the Zionists" is not at all appropriate or accurate. Whether or not you consider the Israeli state a legitimate state when you're accusing that state of killing thousands of people it's important to be specific. At no point does CR distinguish between whether it's the Zionists who carried out the attack, or the Israeli state, or a particular part of the Israeli security apparatus Mossad. He uses these terms interchangably, which is what happens when these words are stripped of their proper meaning and reduced to secular euphemisms for "The Jews."
> 
> I know the origins of the term the Zionist entity and I know it's heritage, but you neglect to mention the term has also been fully incorporated into the lexicon of the neo-nazi far right as a euphemism for Jew.
> 
> I accept it's probably his own clumsy use of language and that he's looking at it from a (flawed) anti-imperialist viewpoint.



The Israeli state apparatus is one hundred percent zionist in ideology. The problem exists absolutely nowhere except in your head . Its a red herring youve introduced to paint those you dont like as bigots, which is a cunts trick . The vast bulk of people who use the term zionist as opposed to the state of  Israeli, an entity constructed upon stolen land the inhabitants and refugees and the UN demand is returned,   to avoid conferring legitimacy to an illegal colonial entity engaged in an ongoing criminal enterprise expropriating even more land  . Nobody gives a flying fuck what a handful of boneheads have to say, theyre an irrelevance . The ideology of the aparthied state is one hundred percent zionist, its aims are one hundred percent zionist . They are zionists, end of .


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> But if you know the history of the term, but how can you leap to such an assumption that using the word zionist is a sign of anti-semitism?



But I'm not saying that. Using the word Zionist inaccurately and as a synonym for "Israel" or "Mossad" whilst making the accusation that Zionists/Israel/Mossad/allthesame are guilty of murdering thousands of innocent people (without even offering any evidence whatsoever that this has actually happened) is awfully close to being anti-semitic.

Don't give this right-wing arsehole the time of day co-op, like I said earlier this guy would be the biggest imperialist Tory going had he been born over here.

I'm repeating myself here so I'm not going to reply to this chain of conversations any more.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Don't give this right-wing arsehole the time of day co-op, like I said earlier this guy would be the biggest imperialist Tory going had he been born over here.
> .




you actually said that...you fucking douchebag


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> But I'm not saying that. Using the word Zionist inaccurately and as a synonym for "Israel" or "Mossad" whilst making the accusation that Zionists/Israel/Mossad/allthesame are guilty of murdering thousands of innocent people (without even offering any evidence whatsoever that this has actually happened) is awfully close to being anti-semitic.
> 
> Don't give this right-wing arsehole the time of day co-op, like I said earlier this guy would be the biggest imperialist Tory going had he been born over here.
> 
> I'm repeating here myself so I'm not going to reply to this chain of conversations any more.



I don't see how you could describe the Israeli state as anything except Zionist and Mossad is clearly at the service of that state and has clearly operated well outside international law in pursuit of the ends of that state. It might not be utterly unambiguously correct to swap the words around but in th context of posts on a bulletin board it's reasonable imo. I just don't see the anti-semitism and I think my antennae are pretty acute.

I must have missed the "right wing" stuff of CR's but we might all have had different politics if we'd been born somewhere else.

We are going round in circles though - you've left me completely unpersuaded by his anti-semitism in post 300.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> you actually said that...you fucking douchebag



Over here reactionary right-wing nationalists join the Tory party. You'd be well at home. Their policy on gay marriage might be a bit liberal for your tastes mind.


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> My point was reducto ad absurdum to show where Jews as poisoners as an anti Semitic trope comes from.




So that would be why you referenced my words about this being 'politics not anti-semitic'? It can only really be to suggest that this is my line of thinking.

Fucking absurdum indeed. 



barney_pig said:


> Also CR has form for Jew baiting which he is carrying on with



As far as I know he's made one joke which sounded anti-semitic to me; that's hardly a history of "jew-baiting". Nothing I've seen him post on this thread could be called "carrying on with" that. And  I daresay at least a few of our hebrew brethren might agree.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Over here reactionary right-wing nationalists join the Tory party. You'd be well at home. Their policy on gay marriage might be a liberal for your tastes mind.



I know it must be well annoying not being able to tell me to check my privilege as things stand, but the scenarios your conjuring up in that attempt are just making you sound even sillier.

Give it up theres a good chap.


----------



## bamalama (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Over here reactionary right-wing nationalists join the Tory party. You'd be well at home. Their policy on gay marriage might be a liberal for your tastes mind.


The last few pages of this thread have a good few interesting, informative posts man and ye've just ballsed that,and that's a shame cos it was very interesting db...i'd like to hear what frogwoman  has to say on this,hers have been the most informed views on this subject i've read in here


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> I know it must be well annoying not being able to tell me to check my privilege as things stand, but the scenarios your conjuring up in that attempt are just making you sound even sillier.
> 
> Give it up theres a good chap.



haha yeah you've got my politics worked out perfectly, well played.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> I don't see how you could describe the Israeli state as anything except Zionist



And I don't see how you can describe Zionism as a political movement as being a synonym for the Israeli state, in particular the part of the Israeli state that commits mass murder by attacking Damascus with chemical weapons.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Oh I disagree, the ability to blame Israel/Mossad/Zionists (all the same) for murdering thousands of people without any evidence at all is a generally a big sign that someone's either a) an idiot who believes any crap to justify the anti-imperialist struggle against the Zionist oppressor or b) an anti-semite lookign for any excuse to justify hating Israel as it's a Jewish state. I tend towards a) when I think about CR's reasoning. I'm not saying it's impossible either, what I'm asking is how does someone jump that conclusion without any evidence at all? When the logic behind why they would do so is so flimsy and easy to pull apart?
> 
> The ability to jump the conclusion that Israel is responsible for this heinous crime, and to reach that conclusion with absolutely fuck all evidence, is itself enough to get my alarm bells ringing.



all very interesting except for the unfortunate detail I never actually blamed them . I simply pointed to the reasons why they deserve to be pretty high on a list of suspects, that the notion they wouldnt work with AQ was demostrably absurd and why suspecting them wasnt remotely anti semitic as you were claiming .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I think its more about WHERE he said it and what audience he was playing to.



so the Iranians need to check their privilege now...this intersectionality is well confusing .


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> And I don't see how you can describe Zionism as a political movement as being a synonym for the Israeli state, in particular the part of the Israeli state that commits mass murder by attacking Damascus with chemical weapons.



I didn't say this though. I said that the Israeli state is zionist in any normal meaning of the word. Obviously Zionism isn't the Israeli state because it's a multi-stranded political phenomenon that couldn't be represented in its entirety by any state. And the fact that the Israeli state is Zionist (i.e.- in this context - follows a foreign policy based on expansionist aggression) obviously doesn't mean that all the inhabitants of Israel are zionists in this sense either. Come on - this is all pretty clear isn't it?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 4, 2013)

will get back to this next week. at work and i dont want to be thinking about this tomorrow, or at the weekend.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> I didn't say this though. I said that the Israeli state is zionist in any normal meaning of the word. Obviously Zionism isn't the Israeli state because it's a multi-stranded political phenomenon that couldn't be represented in its entirety by any state. And the fact that the Israeli state is Zionist (i.e.- in this context - follows a foreign policy based on expansionist aggression) obviously doesn't mean that all the inhabitants of Israel are zionists in this sense either. Come on - this is all pretty clear isn't it?



it's crystal clear, I'm glad it only took a million posts for you to agree that using the terms Israel and Zionist and Mossad as synonyms is stupid. EDIT apologies thought you were CR

It's a shame you didn't pick up on Casually Red doing it back in post 300, could've saved us a lot of tedious problems and I could've been more productive today


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> so the Iranians need to check their privilege now...this intersectionality is well confusing .




nope- just that anti-Israel rhetoric plays well does it not? Arma...never can spell his name...the bloke who used to be in charge... has used it a few times. Really annoys me that I can't spell names properly, I'm supposed to be good with words. Anyway. Iranian distrust of Israeli motives is as justified as thier historical mistrust of the english. BUT what gallery was george playing to there? He's absolutely known for exploiting sectarian and other divides to further the cause of George. And I'm still not forgetting his 'I don't debate with Israelis' one the other day. Is GGG an anti semite? probably not. No more than he is really against the orange sash.
will he sail close to the wind and use dogwhistle phrases to make friends and voters? Oh yes. We can be sure of that.

There is another point to be discussed of course- how much the appropriation of certain language makes you complicit in the ideological causes of groups furthering certain aims...personally I take the view that if you are going to use certain terms with intent while not believing the ideological motives, but doing so for personal gain and credibility. Well, then theres only a fag paper between that and being the real deal


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> personally I take the view that if you are going to use certain terms with intent while not believing the ideological motives, but doing so for personal gain and credibility. Well, then theres only a fag paper between that and being the real deal


You're no doubt referring to Galloway, but more generally I feel uncomfortable having to mind certain sensitivities with the use of various words or phrases. When people start hurling around proximities to noxious ideologies really just to shut down or cordon off debate, especially when they're referring to someone who is nothing like that, that in itself becomes illiberal.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

God you wouldn't want to be illiberal. that would be the worst thing ever.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm not keen on it.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

the term zionist , as evidenced by the relevant UN General Assembly motion, is in no manner synonymous with anti semitism regardless of the mumblings of a few boneheads . And never has been . To start taking that line is to start criminalising the vast bulk of Palestinian support throughout the world . Whether that support resides in Iran or anywhere else is irrelevant . Up until the collapse of the soviet union zionism was classed by the UN general assembly as no different in character to apartheid ideology of south africa, which was one of the zionist states closest allies . After the US its most important ally, even a nuclear ally .
That definition only changed when the USA became the worlds sole superpower and exercised its muscle according to the new global equation, not because of any moral change in the nature of the zionist state. Which got worse if anything .
There is nothing illegitimate whatsoever in opponents of that state using the term and never has been . And never will be . The deliberate refusal through our choice of language to grant legitimacy to that entities illegal and criminal theft and colonisation of territories, which international law refuses to recognise either, is an assertion of Palestinian rights and a condemnation of aggression, theft, racism, ethnic cleansing and international criminality .

It is not anti semitism .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

the head of the FSA is already on record from some time back as stating his belief that Mossad are very active in Syria and very interested in the chemicals issue .And of course  very anxious to have the government blamed on chemical weapons use . Not exactly an anti semitic paper either . So anxious to prove it they were going solo with their pronouncements and leaving the yanks feeling ambushed and a bit annoyed. According to Hagel.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/rebel-general-claims-mossad-operating-in-syria/

the trouble is the March 19 attack which Mossad compiled the evidence over is the one in khan Assal, which a lot of people including at the UN are now pretty sure was a false flag attempt . If it was Mossad are up to their balls in that one .

and according to this report pretty much all the evidence the US and its allies claim to have on Assads guilt originates from the very same source, the zionist military. The same people who were dicking about on march 19 and khan assal .

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk

So, if this is a false flag attack it points very much to them being involved in the aftermath of the conspiracy . And the previous false flag conspiracy in khan assal as well .


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> You're no doubt referring to Galloway, but more generally I feel uncomfortable having to mind certain sensitivities with the use of various words or phrases. When people start hurling around proximities to noxious ideologies really just to shut down or cordon off debate, especially when they're referring to someone who is nothing like that, that in itself becomes illiberal.




really? I'm perfectly happy to be pulled up if I'm using language in an offensive or dodgily suggestive way without meaning to. Its really easy to say 'Oh I do apologise, I didn't mean to imply anything- allow me to clarify'



It doesn't need to shut down debate- thats what hamfisted users of the Great Wheel of Opression are into.


But to acknowledge that it wasn't the right word(s) and go on, then thats fine.

GG is a very skilled orator and knows exactly what his phrases mean, what baggage they carry and the chains of associated meaning behind them. If it was Joe Ordinary at his first time at the pulpit then I could forgive. GG is a career politician and knows exactly the utility of his linguistic choices.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

You're certainly right about Galloway and those who do this sort of thing for a living. I'd let others off the hook though. Quite often, comments on forums such as this are rattled off quite rapidly, could well even be rather under the influence or due to emotion more than they should, and so not be as thought through as they might be. By all means call them on it, but to dismiss someone's entire outlook because they don't distinguish sufficiently between Israeli and Zionist is taking a hammer to a nut.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> You're certainly right about Galloway and those who do this sort of thing for a living. I'd let others off the hook though. Quite often, comments on forums such as this are rattled off quite rapidly, could well even be rather under the influence or due to emotion more than they should, and so not be as thought through as they might be. By all means call them on it, but to dismiss someone's entire outlook because they don't distinguish sufficiently between Israeli and Zionist is taking a hammer to a nut.



lets be clear, its an attempt to equate opposition to zionist criminality with anti semitism . And an attempt to force and pressure people into using terminology that confers a legal legitimacy to the theft of Arab lands and the expulsion of the population . Regardless of what international law has to say on that criminal activity . Its an insistence people conform to the view that the theft of those territories has  legitimacy and to adjust their terminology accordingly to reflect that . Using spurious claims of anti semitism as the means to haul you into line .

And while im at it theres no compulsion for Galloway or anyone else to dignify whats already been identified and condemned as criminal, racist behaviour under international law by giving its apologists  a platform to argue their case . That generosity wasnt afforded to the zionists freinds in Johannesburg and shouldnt in my view be afforded to their ilk in Tel Aviv either . Theres nothing to debate, its already been pronounced as criminality in the international courts on numerous occasions and roundly condemned by the majority of the worlds nations, on numerous occasions . If they dont want to be treated as international criminals then stop repeatedly breaching international law in such a despicable manner .
Galloways right on that one too .


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> lets be clear, its an attempt to equate opposition to zionist criminality with anti semitism.


I quite agree. There's a tendency to regard all criticism of Israeli policies or the Zionist project as anti-semitism and even to draw parallels with Nazi propaganda. That sort of thing is reprehensible.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> And while im at it theres no compulsion for Galloway or anyone else to dignify whats already been identified and condemned as criminal, racist behaviour under international law by giving its apologists  a platform to argue their case . That generosity wasnt afforded to the zionists freinds in Johannesburg and shouldnt in my view be afforded to their ilk in Tel Aviv either . Theres nothing to debate, its already been pronounced as criminality in the international courts on numerous occasions and roundly condemned by the majority of the worlds nations, on numerous occasions . If they dont want to be treated as international criminals then stop repeatedly breaching international law in such a despicable manner .
> Galloways right on that one too .


Was apartheid South Africa a Jewish run state? News to the many Jews who fought against apartheid


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

No it's an attempt to try and blame Israel/Mossad/Zionism for attacking Ghouta that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Did Galloway produce any evidence of Mossad being responsible for this chemical weapons attack? Have you produced any evidence of this white rabbit? Casually Red?

The US case against Assad might be weak but at least they've got one. You've got literally nothing and neither has Galloway.

Accusing Assad of using chemical weapons with very little evidence = proof of Zionist conspiracy to frame Assad and provoke war 

Speculating that Mossad did it without any evidence at all = Totally plausable

Anyone who points out this hypocrisy is clearly just trying to justify the grinding of Palestinian faces into the dirt and is a dirty Zionist bag carrier.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> lets be clear, its an attempt to equate opposition to zionist criminality with anti semitism . And an attempt to force and pressure people into using terminology that confers a legal legitimacy to the theft of Arab lands and the expulsion of the population . Regardless of what international law has to say on that criminal activity . Its an insistence people conform to the view that the theft of those territories has  legitimacy and to adjust their terminology accordingly to reflect that . Using spurious claims of anti semitism as the means to haul you into line .
> 
> And while im at it theres no compulsion for Galloway or anyone else to dignify whats already been identified and condemned as criminal, racist behaviour under international law by giving its apologists  a platform to argue their case . That generosity wasnt afforded to the zionists freinds in Johannesburg and shouldnt in my view be afforded to their ilk in Tel Aviv either . Theres nothing to debate, its already been pronounced as criminality in the international courts on numerous occasions and roundly condemned by the majority of the worlds nations, on numerous occasions . If they dont want to be treated as international criminals then stop repeatedly breaching international law in such a despicable manner .
> Galloways right on that one too .



you'll not reply to my response to you then CR? Fair enough if you can't be arsed but I had hoped for some response- a dialouge.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> I quite agree. There's a tendency to regard all criticism of Israeli policies or the Zionist project as anti-semitism and even to draw parallels with Nazi propaganda. That sort of thing is reprehensible.



sadly its a tactic rather than a tendency


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> you'll not reply to my response to you then CR? Fair enough if you can't be arsed but I had hoped for some response- a dialouge.



what response to me..i honestly dont see one. you were talking to someone else as far as i can see . More than happy to dialogue with yourself


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Was apartheid South Africa a Jewish run state? News to the many Jews who fought against apartheid



You are either really stupid or really desperate for a pointless argument if you can make this post.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> sadly its a tactic rather than a tendency



Yeah it's a tactic we get taught at ZOG summer school, how to use false accusations of anti-semitism to negate the heroic critics of Zionism such as yourself.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Accusing Assad of using chemical weapons with very little evidence = proof of Zionist conspiracy to frame Assad and provoke war
> .



the evidence is being provided to the western powers by the zionist military , just as it was previously in Khan Assal .
That was a chemical attack that killed dozens but which UN agencies and others are quite sure was actually the work of jihadists . The UN went there to investigate when this next attack happened .That fake evidence, and the manner in which it was announced leads one to the conclusion both zionists and jihadists are acting in concert around the issues of false flag chemical attacks and western military intervention to a common purpose .If Khan Assal was a jihadist attack then the zionists are deeply implicated in it and attempting to use it as a pretext for western intervention . Because thats exactly what they attempted to get from it .


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> the evidence is being provided to the western powers by the zionist military , just as it was previously in Khan Assal .



Whereas the evidence that it was Mossad/Israel/Zionism that carried out the chemical weapons in Ghouta was provided by, erm, who exactly?



Casually Red said:


> That was a chemical attack that killed dozens but which UN agencies and others are quite sure was actually the work of jihadists . The UN went there to investigate when this next attack happened .That fake evidence, and the manner in which it was announced leads one to the conclusion both zionists and jihadists are acting in concert around the issues of false flag chemical attacks and western military intervention to a common purpose .If Khan Assal was a jihadist attack then the zionists are deeply implicated in it and attempting to use it as a pretext for western intervention . Because thats exactly what they attempted to get from it .



^ This is clearly much more likely, and is far more reliably sourced and documented, than any other possible theory as to what happened in Ghouta.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Whereas the evidence that it was Mossad/Israel/Zionism that carried out the chemical weapons in Ghouta was provided by, erm, who exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> ^ This is clearly much more likely, and is far more reliably sourced and documented, than any other possible theory as to what happened in Ghouta.


ok now, your accepting the zionists were involved at some level in using jihadist chemical attacks to falsely implicate the syrians and force western intervention . But even though you accept that happened in the past you refuse to accept it likely theyd do it twice . Even though the wests secret evidence again comes from the zionists . As it did in khan assal .


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> ok now, your accepting the zionists were involved at some level in using jihadist chemical attacks to falsely implicate the syrians and force western intervention . But even though you accept that happened in the past you refuse to accept it likely theyd do it twice . Even though the wests secret evidence again comes from the zionists . As it did in khan assal .


_
Whereas the evidence that it was Mossad/Israel/Zionism that carried out the chemical weapons in Ghouta was provided by, erm, who exactly?_

Any chance of a reply to that? Or did the source for Galloway's claims that Israel carried out the chemical weapons attacks in Ghouta get pulled straight from from Galloways arse?


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> _Whereas the evidence that it was Mossad/Israel/Zionism that carried out the chemical weapons in Ghouta was provided by, erm, who exactly?_


Everyone is in the dark about this. I have to admit that if I were to go for anyone, it would be the Syrian regime. But it's so much of an unknown unknown that no one can say, really. Certainly not enough to go to war. I'm quite prepared to listen to any theory.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> Everyone is in the dark about this. I have to admit that if I were to go for anyone, it would be the Syrian regime. But it's so much of an unknown unknown that no one can say, really. Certainly not enough to go to war. I'm quite prepared to listen to any theory.



they are the last people i would blame, for the simple fact they are the people whos interests dictate most obviously they dont go down that route .
Either we accept that states generally act according to their interests or we dont .


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> they are the last people i would blame, for the simple fact they are the people whos interests dictate most obviously they dont go down that route .
> Either we accept that states generally act according to their interests or we dont .


I did hesitate before posting that. They lead the field in my ill-thought out list of contenders, but there's not much to choose between them. I guess their delay in allowing UN inspectors smelled a bit fishy, but there are so many reasons why not and with all the others involved there are bound to be factors we don't grasp yet.

I have absolutely no doubt that US, Israeli, Russian and Arab covert forces have been busily at work both diplomatically and militarily. This shit won't be uncovered for decades.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> So does this gibberish mean Israel is therefore responsible for all crimes, or what?



An answer to the question, which was plain enough for you to understand and answer would have been enough, but I see you've avoided it. The "or what" is what exactly?


----------



## audiotech (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Looks like it to me.
> 
> At least he didn't copy and paste it from wikipedia though.



He's a big boy and can answer his own questions. Oh, he didn't did he. The idiocy I'll ignore.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> I did hesitate before posting that. They lead the field in my ill-thought out list of contenders, but there's not much to choose between them. I guess their delay in allowing UN inspectors smelled a bit fishy, but there are so many reasons why not and with all the others involved there are bound to be factors we don't grasp yet.
> *I have absolutely no doubt that US, Israeli, Russian and Arab covert forces have been busily at work both diplomatically and militarily. This shit won't be uncovered for decades*.



most definitely

do you mind if i ask about the delay in allowing UN inspectors, and what you mean by that


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

It looked like they had something to hide.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> _Whereas the evidence that it was Mossad/Israel/Zionism that carried out the chemical weapons in Ghouta was provided by, erm, who exactly?_
> 
> Any chance of a reply to that? Or did the source for Galloway's claims that Israel carried out the chemical weapons attacks in Ghouta get pulled straight from from Galloways arse?



if i remember correctly Galloway said it was his theory, he didnt pronounce it as a provable fact . Youve pulled that claim out of your own arse, and for your own purposes  . And as far as I can make out its a compelling theory .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> It looked like they had something to hide.



no i mean the delay . As regards the Ghouta events there actually wasnt one . The UN didnt ask to go there until the saturday . They were granted permission within 24 hours .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 4, 2013)

co-op said:


> Delroy Booth and Casually Red  - stop fighting dammit, you are two of my favourite posters!



Pah, they're a pair of wankers working up their foreplay.  Give it enough time and they'll be stroking each other off!


----------



## co-op (Sep 4, 2013)

Nothing wrong with wanking.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

im not going to be wanking him off ever, and thats a fact not a theory .


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no i mean the delay . As regards the Ghouta events there actually wasnt one . The UN didnt ask to go there until the saturday . They were granted permission within 24 hours .


I've only just got back from holiday so I've been grabbing the news where I can, but I thought that the UN inspectors were delayed for days before being allowed access and were then fired on by snipers causing further delays. All the time there were warnings that any sarin was likely to degrade significantly in the time they had left.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> I've only just got back from holiday so I've been grabbing the news where I can, but I thought that the UN inspectors were delayed for days before being allowed access and were then fired on by snipers causing further delays. All the time there were warnings that any sarin was likely to degrade significantly in the time they had left.



Yeah I seen all that . But the facts are they only requested to visit the scene on the saturday and had their confirmation the next day . As soon as that happened the western powers started announcing the results of any tests would be irrelevant anyway. And the notion sarin would degrade was a red herring, as theyd come to syria at the governments request to investigate alleged sarin attacks that had taken place months earlier . Attacks that almost definitely seem to have been orchestrated at some level between Mossad and the jihadists .
So we should really be asking ourselves why Assad would want that completely obscured by doing this .


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

I heard a Syrian official explaining to someone on the Today programme that allowing inspectors in would be a breach of sovereignty. I thought at the time, uh oh.

As I mentioned before, there's probably a ton of shit out there that we are unaware of. The Syrians could know that Mossad or the CIA or someone has made the area look as dodgy as fuck. Maybe they were madly trying to undo something that reflected badly on them. Maybe it was some over-zealous Syrian commander and they were doing the same or maybe they were guilty as fuck and they were playing for time. Dunno. But it didn't look good, and my guess is to go with Occam's razor on this one.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> I heard a Syrian official explaining to someone on the Today programme that allowing inspectors in would be a breach of sovereignty. I thought at the time, uh oh.
> 
> As I mentioned before, there's probably a ton of shit out there that we are unaware of. The Syrians could know that Mossad or the CIA or someone has made the area look as dodgy as fuck. Maybe they were madly trying to undo something that reflected badly on them. Maybe it was some over-zealous Syrian commander and they were doing the same or maybe they were guilty as fuck and they were playing for time. Dunno. But it didn't look good, and my guess is to go with Occam's razor on this one.



i think that was in reply to why syria didnt agree to give the inspectors a free reign to go wherever they wanted, prior to the attack . Syria had formally requested the investigators  come there but the UN were refusing unless they were granted free reign to go wherever they wanted in the country, which no state would ever agree to . They only went there eventually under intense diplomatic pressure from Russia . They didnt want to be in syria at all, most likely due to what their investigation would turn up as regards Khan Assal .
Many people seem to have the impresion that the UN were demanding syria admit inspectors, when in reality it was Syria and Russia demanding the UN send them .


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 4, 2013)

When something as awful as a chemical weapons attack has taken place, you don't stand on ceremony. Go in, get the data you need, get an independent assessment and credibly show the world it isn't us. Instead, they prevaricated and complained about sovereignty. It doesn't indicate responsibility for the attack, but it looks bad.


----------



## benedict (Sep 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> No it's an attempt to try and blame Israel/Mossad/Zionism for attacking Ghouta that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
> 
> Did Galloway produce any evidence of Mossad being responsible for this chemical weapons attack? Have you produced any evidence of this white rabbit? Casually Red?
> 
> ...



I think you're painting this issue in far too stark terms, Delroy. 

In the clip referenced, Galloway doesn't state that Israel did it. He states "You want to know who I think did it..." I see nothing inherently anti-Semitic in someone saying they believe Israeli agents were responsible. Just as if someone had said that they believed that American agents had done it, the statement wouldn't mean they were anti-American per se. The lack of evidence might make someone a fool or a fantasist but it doesn't mean automatically make them anti-Semitic. As others have said, it would likely be within the capacity of both states to engage in such duplicity if they so wished. Israel has a vast military and intelligence apparatus, the most advanced technology in the region, and security services that have the capacity to reach far into neighboring states, as has been clearly shown repeatedly not only in military strikes but also in assassinations and kidnapping etc. To acknowledge this fact does not mean one is automatically engaged in bonkers ZOG conspiracy theories, though one could argue on the basis of the evidence that the suggestion that Israel was responsible for the chemical weapons attack in Syria is _itself _bonkers.

However, the wider context of the show on Press TV does suggest Galloway is pandering to his audience. Later on in the show he does get into a lot of rabid, frothing at the mouth stuff concerning "the Zionist entity" or similar phrases which is really toxic and in stark contrast to how he presents himself to the British Left. This was as bad as I've ever heard him in this respect and does lend support for Delroy's claims regarding Galloway's self-presentation, if not his true beliefs, whatever they are. 

Also if you watch his parliamentary speech on the Syria debate he flat out denies saying what he does on Press TV, describing another MP's constituent's complaints as green ink letters. Flat out duplicitous there at least.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 4, 2013)

Press TV is now banned in the UK, isn't it?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 4, 2013)

white rabbit said:


> When something as awful as a chemical weapons attack has taken place, you don't stand on ceremony. Go in, get the data you need, get an independent assessment and credibly show the world it isn't us. Instead, they prevaricated and complained about sovereignty. It doesn't indicate responsibility for the attack, but it looks bad.



when its apparent the reason it has taken place is to blame you for it then id suggest the wisest course of action is to be very cautious indeed . The syrians made no attempt to prevaricate or delay on the latest attack . They gave almost immediate permission . They had invited the UN team in to investigate previous attacks but the UN wouldnt go unless they were allowed access to absolutely anywhere in syria they wanted to go . Something they knew in advance syria would never agree to and was under no obligation to agree to .
Bearing in mind the man leading the team had been in charge of the Iraq one, which engaged in a lot of very dubious and politically motivated stuff when it had that UN mandate to go anywhere , then that was certainly not a blank cheque the syrians were prepared to write. But the UN insisted on making it the entry fee to investigate the attack syria was pleading with them to investiagte . Eventually after diplomatic pressure from Russia the UN agreed to drop their ridiculous demand . And as soon as they arrived in Syria to investigate a chemical attack Mossad and the jigadists are heavily implicated in theres an apparent chemical massacre 15 minutes from their hotel .

So to call that suss is an understtement in my view .

ETA

Bear in mind too that the western powers have made it abundantly clear they dont care what the UN investigators have to say, theyre not remotely interested in their investigations and are openly dismissing them as worthless before theyve even been carried out . Instead they are insisitng theyve already compiled their own secret evidence which theyre refusing to submit to the UNSC for appraisal. And it appears the Israeli military is the source of that evidence . Just as it was the source of the false evidence in Khan Assal .


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2013)

i'll get back to this next week, might PM you bamalama but today is really not the day i want to be thinking about this


----------



## bamalama (Sep 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> will get back to this next week. at work and i dont want to be thinking about this tomorrow, or at the weekend.


Forgot about the holiday fw...have good un...been smelling incense for two days


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 5, 2013)

bamalama said:


> Forgot about the holiday fw...have good un...been smelling incense for two days



yeah no worries, just want to chill and not think about bullshit.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Sep 5, 2013)

benedict said:


> I think you're painting this issue in far too stark terms, Delroy.
> 
> In the clip referenced, Galloway doesn't state that Israel did it. He states "You want to know who I think did it..." I see nothing inherently anti-Semitic in someone saying they believe Israeli agents were responsible. Just as if someone had said that they believed that American agents had done it, the statement wouldn't mean they were anti-American per se. The lack of evidence might make someone a fool or a fantasist but it doesn't mean automatically make them anti-Semitic.



That's pure semantics. Allow me to demonstrate.

I think you kidnapped tortured and murdered a child 3 years ago. I have no evidence at all of this but I'll go round your home town with pictures of you saying that you did and put them through everyone's letter box. If you or anyone else questions the morality I'll just say "I didn't say I knew, I just said think, it's just a theory" and carry on making the baseless claims.

Galloway's theory that Israel did it is based on absolutely no evidence that they did do it. But that's ok right? Who needs evidence? It's the Zionists they're usually behind it all anyway. 

The ironic thing is CR and so on are having a go at the US for being secretive with their evidence of Assad's guilt, and I agree they are being secretive and it's very dodgy I was saying that whilst CR was banned for anti-semitism infact, but it also appears you don't need any evidence at all to speculate it was Israel that did it. Absolutely none. It's just a theory. Like when David Irvine theorises about the holocaust happening, he's just putting a theory out there, and it's terrible when those ZOG puppets shout him down and stop the debate he's earnestly trying to have.

And anyone who thinks this a double standard is clearly just a ZOG agent working to criminalise the Palestinian struggle.


----------



## benedict (Sep 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> That's pure semantics. Allow me to demonstrate.
> 
> I think you kidnapped tortured and murdered a child 3 years ago. I have no evidence at all of this but I'll go round your home town with pictures of you saying that you did and put them through everyone's letter box. If you or anyone else questions the morality I'll just say "I didn't say I knew, I just said think, it's just a theory" and carry on making the baseless claims.



Not exactly a perfect analogy. But it demonstrates the point. If you did such a thing it would be pretty clear that you didn't like me much and likely were pursuing a vendetta against me for other reasons. It wouldn't mean that, if I was a plumber, say, you were prejudiced against all plumbers, believed they were all murderers, and were trying to convince others of this. Clearly Galloway doesn't like the state of Israel much and is in a sense pursuing a vendetta against it. This alone doesn't make him an anti-Semite. I'm trying to work with your analogy here. To burnish it I guess you should add that I'd attacked most of my neighbors at one time or another up to and including child murder, and that I'd built my home on the ruins of someone else's who I'd kicked out. In this case I probably couldn't legitimately question your morality in any case.


----------



## benedict (Sep 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Galloway's theory that Israel did it is based on absolutely no evidence that they did do it. But that's ok right? Who needs evidence? It's the Zionists they're usually behind it all anyway.
> 
> The ironic thing is CR and so on are having a go at the US for being secretive with their evidence of Assad's guilt, and I agree they are being secretive and it's very dodgy I was saying that whilst CR was banned for anti-semitism infact, but it also appears you don't need any evidence at all to speculate it was Israel that did it. Absolutely none. It's just a theory. Like when David Irvine theorises about the holocaust happening, he's just putting a theory out there, and it's terrible when those ZOG puppets shout him down and stop the debate he's earnestly trying to have.
> 
> And anyone who thinks this a double standard is clearly just a ZOG agent working to criminalise the Palestinian struggle.



One difference is that Galloway is using inductive inference on the basis of Israel's documented myriad past engagements in various forms of state terror whereas Irving is making deductive arguments about a singular event based on distorted to non-existent evidence.

The former case is analogous to there being a coup d'état in a small Central American state and someone claiming "I think the US had a hand in this..." based on voluminous evidence of previous the US's conduct in the region. The latter form of argument is analogous to building an elaborate theory that the Bay of Pigs never took place and the whole story was just a ruse.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> ....CR was banned for anti-semitism infact,....


Bullshit.

Rewriting history now?


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I was saying that whilst CR was banned for anti-semitism infact.



no i wasnt..lying get


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 5, 2013)

It's pathetic..everyone in this thread knew it was a lie the second they read it, but there are many quite happy to let it hang in the air if it suits their agenda.

A nasty bunch, some of these.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 5, 2013)

thats precisely why i decided to stop posting for a while


----------



## co-op (Sep 7, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> It's pathetic..everyone in this thread knew it was a lie the second they read it, but there are many quite happy to let it hang in the air if it suits their agenda.



To be fair I didn't know he hadn't been banned and my guess is that quite a few people didn't - U75 bannings seem a bit random to me and it was possible CR had been.

But you're right about the stupid partisanship of some posters. It's pathetic.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2013)

mossad has indeed done some dodgy shit around the middle east. I'm not sure suggesting the attack is a chemical weapons attack by Israel is anti-semitic when mossad's exploits in the region are well known, but i don't see how the israeli government would have gained anything by it.if there is evidence and it's documented by people other than prison planet, press tv and the syrian government there's no way discussing it is necessarily anti-semitic, i would want some fucking good proof of it though before i believed it. 

what i do think is a bit dodge is the whole Mearsheimer and Walt thesis of a "zionist lobby" which is some sort of alien body within the state persuading the US government to act in ways contrary to American interests (fuck "american interests" anyway) with powers other groups which influence the USstate don't have. Israel does influence the US in some ways but so do many of the US's allies like the UKand it also implies there would be such a thing as a "good" american capitalism and that FP would be vastly different without Israel.

to be honest, "zionism" means different things to different people and except aas a shorthand to describe Israeli government supporters it's largely useless (and even then...) - many people who callthemselvess zionists don't support the government at all. i wouldavoid that term to be honestand just refer to people who support Israeli government policy. which huge numbers of israelis don't.

galloway is a duplicitous fuck anyway - he would never say the things he says if they were criticising the people who pay him .... amazingthat anyone stil gives him any credibility at all.


----------



## benedict (Sep 7, 2013)

co-op said:


> To be fair I didn't know he hadn't been banned and my guess is that quite a few people didn't - U75 bannings seem a bit random to me and it was possible CR had been.
> 
> But you're right about the stupid partisanship of some posters. It's pathetic.



I wasn't aware of his status either, though I do recall the row.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2013)

there have been a few dodgy incidents involving Israel in the region such as the USS Liberty (I think?) and a few others, others on here are a lot more well informed about this than i am like for example ymu, I am not prepared to take the word of someone like galloway thought who i think is in the payroll of a government that is just as dodgy as Israel, that is discriminatory and repressive and has killed and locked up many opponents of its regime, even if they are not on America's side (but actually still do not insubstantial trade with Israel). to me galloway is just another capitalist politician , the fact that he is paid to slag off the Uk on press tv doesn't make him any less of a supporter of capitalism, look at his massive house, he is fully ensconced in that system. he just supports a different side in the same "game". 

i'd like to read more about this but from a trusted source ie, not george fucking galloway. what does for example norman finkelstein say about it?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2013)

benedict said:


> Not exactly a perfect analogy. But it demonstrates the point. If you did such a thing it would be pretty clear that you didn't like me much and likely were pursuing a vendetta against me for other reasons. It wouldn't mean that, if I was a plumber, say, you were prejudiced against all plumbers, believed they were all murderers, and were trying to convince others of this. Clearly Galloway doesn't like the state of Israel much and is in a sense pursuing a vendetta against it. This alone doesn't make him an anti-Semite. I'm trying to work with your analogy here. To burnish it I guess you should add that I'd attacked most of my neighbors at one time or another up to and including child murder, and that I'd built my home on the ruins of someone else's who I'd kicked out. In this case I probably couldn't legitimately question your morality in any case.



he may not be personally anti-semitic but he's dipped his toe in the murky waters of it as well as pandering to the worst kind of islamist populism and is quite happy to take money from people who are - as well as saying that he won't debate with israelis which is at the very least racist .... however i think the only thing he really think about is george galloway tbh


----------



## benedict (Sep 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> mossad has indeed done some dodgy shit around the middle east. I'm not sure suggesting the attack is a chemical weapons attack by Israel is anti-semitic when mossad's exploits in the region are well known, but i don't see how the israeli government would have gained anything by it.



Yep, since the Syrian regime under the Assads basically kept the border with the Golan quiet since the 1973 war I don't think Israel saw any reason at all to desire their overthrow, especially since the regime has been brutally effective at repressing more radical elements, and despite their tough talk did little to nothing to challenge Israel, apart from via the proxy wars fought in Lebanon. And throughout the uprising in Syria Israel's position seems to have been one of cautious ambivalence rather than actively attempting to assist the overthrow of Assad. I think there has been a lot of nervousness and vacillation in Israel about what would come after any Assad ouster.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2013)

benedict said:


> Yep, since the Syrian regime under the Assads basically kept the border with the Golan quiet since the 1973 war I don't think Israel saw any reason at all to desire their overthrow, especially since the regime has been brutally effective at repressing more radical elements, and despite their tough talk did little to nothing to challenge Israel, apart from via the proxy wars fought in Lebanon. And throughout the uprising in Syria Israel's position seems to have been one of cautious ambivalence rather than actively attempting to assist the overthrow of Assad. I think there has been a lot of nervousness and vacillation in Israel about what would come after any Assad ouster.



yeah, it's not anti-semitic but i don't see what the israeli state would have to gain from it at all.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 7, 2013)

I see an attack on Syria as part of a proxy war with Iran. In that sense, Israel def does have a dog in this fight.


----------



## benedict (Sep 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> he may not be personally anti-semitic but he's dipped his toe in the murky waters of it as well as pandering to the worst kind of islamist populism and is quite happy to take money from people who are - as well as saying that he won't debate with israelis which is at the very least racist .... however i think the only thing he really think about is george galloway tbh



I agree with you there; the language in the part of the Press TV show after the Israeli chemical weapons claim is really disgusting from him.

On not debating with Israelis, I think it's open to question whether this is racist. My impression is that its more due to an attempt to align with a BDS position, like academics who won't collaborate with Israeli labs or go to conferences. I think this is at least in principle a defensible position.

Overall I reckon I feel pretty much the same about Galloway instinctively and emotionally as you do, froggy, about his self-serving character.

However, I do think there is a thread running through his career which has always been consistently to argue for the rights of Palestinians. This runs right from his days on Glasgow City Council. And I think he has been consistent there and, moreover, I have always had the strong impression that he does feel very passionately about this cause. He was once talked of seriously (in the late 1980s I believe) as a future leader of Labour and I think we have to hand it to him that both his oratorical skills and his political nous are probably second to no other parliamentary politicians in our era. Thus he could have had a very different political trajectory than he has done. And a lot of the reason he hasn't is due to various radical positions he has adopted.

He represents a puzzle though, at least to me. He is clearly supremely vain, narcissistic, and self-promoting. He also has awesome talents. Yet he has progressively marginalized himself. How to explain this? I genuinely think his deep emotional commitment to Palestine is one aspect of this. I think he is actually quite a fascinating character.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2013)

i have to disagree with you there m8 - not debating with some random who's not even particularly supportive of the government line is a bds position? is it really any wonder that mates of mine and people i know who don't even like what Israel does or its government don't want nothing to do with "bds" then? if you (i'm not saying you think this, but people who agree with GG) actually think this is all right on the basis of solidarity to the palestinians then that's fucked - would people think it was all right to say to a chinese person that they weren't going to have anything to do with them on the basis that the chinese government were a bunch of arseholes? or a russian person that because of what russia did in chechnya and georgia that they were going to treat them like some sort of shit on their shoe? - he didn't say zionist, he didn't say government supporters, he said israelis, and saying you're not going to debate with somebody because of their nationality is fucked. what does it do to build working class solidarity, absolutely fuck all, and moreover it plays into the hands of the israeli government who rub their hands with glee at all this. 

i see what you're saying but i don't think that solidarity with palestinians should mean treating all israelis like they're a cunt, what the fuck good is that gonna do, especially when you're quite happy to play into the hands of regimes like russia and iran which are all ultimately a part of the same system Israel is, have also participated in trade with israel and have not been averse to a bit of massacring of people they don't like either . i don't think there's anything wrong with boycotting israeli goods as a political position, but don't be a cunt and take a look at what you are doing (being paid by press tv, living in million pound houses) and how your own actions affect all this) - i think positions like that have actually done a huge amount to and actually done a huge amount to put a lot of people off the whole thing who might have actually been really critical of israel, the US, the UK in the past - its like people saying that British soldiers are all cunts and completely alienating their families in the process ... or saying classist bollocks about the edl - it just doesn't help anyone. 

i'm sorry if this post is a bit muddled by the way benedict, i'm typing on a mac which is so slow that my sentences show up on the screen about five mins after i've typed them so losing track of what i'm saying a bit. 

very very far from being a supporter of the israeli state btw, fell out with a lot of family members over this one ... i just don't think simplistic bollocks like this helps anyone ...


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2013)

quite a few people i know have been to israel or have family there by the way and go to visit them sometimes. i don't think this means they should just be written off as a cunt any more than we would write a chinese person living in the UK off as a cunt for buying chinese food or going out once every few years to see their family. to me things like this "BDS" position (which i'm 90% sure is not what the founders of BDS had in mind) and george galloway are symptomatic of how the trad left is completely out of touch with modern society and is completely counterproductive to the needs of the working class a lot of the time . like it or not george galloway is seen as the public face of the left and frankly if this is the best they can do we need to fucking start from scratch.


----------



## benedict (Sep 7, 2013)

Personally I think BDS is defensible as a strategy in general though I don't think it is a particularly effective one. When it comes to refusing to debate with individuals I think that it basically comes down to who that person is and what their political stance is. So I agree that a blanket approach to Israelis is moronic or worse. But there is a compelling moral argument I think to saying that debating with someone who's effectively advocating ethnic cleansing of various degrees can be refused since even entering into debate serves to legitimate their position. Obviously this is not what Galloway has been up to, I understand.

The broader issue you raise concerning the Left's moral outrage about Israel as compared to other states is an interesting one I think. Various rationalizations could be provided; the best one is the "moral responsibility" stance since our government is a good ally of Israel and we can affect UK policy (in theory). But I think this actually a post hoc justification for a more visceral emotional pull that the Palestinian cause has. It is an interesting one. Hard to say why it has such a pull on the Left in the UK. Obviously it's a horrible situation and a gross historical injustice. But there are plenty of those. I do think that the Left's focus on this and other international causes is symptomatic of a much wider malaise.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 7, 2013)

agree about no platform - it could equally be applied to some of galloway's islamist pals though.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> agree about no platform - it could equally be applied to some of galloway's islamist pals though.


Ah...the old 'anyone who agrees with GG is an islamist' argument.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Ah...the old 'anyone who agrees with GG is an islamist' argument.



whats that got to do with frogwoman's comment about some of his associates?

please develop basic cognitive abiliites.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> whats that got to do with frogwoman's comment about some of his associates?
> 
> please develop basic cognitive abiliites.


Perhaps you're first utterance should consider the second.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 8, 2013)

Let me expand 



Spanky Longhorn said:


> You teaming up with the Dexterlamist slime? How the mighty have fallen.



Because of my general pro-Galloway position (I agree with him in more things than I disagree with him) you called me islamist slime...yeah?  

Froggy liked that post you made.  The one calling me islamist slime.

Let's say I was to call froggy jewish slime, or kali black slime, or editor english slime, reno german slime....yeah?   You and your mates would be right in with the big boots.

Believe me...my 'basic cognitive abilites' are quite good enough.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

Can't think, can't read what can you do Dex?

I wrote Dexterlamist not islamist. Also it was me what wrote it, not frogwoman.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> ...I wrote Dexterlamist not islamist.....


Yup

Go on.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Let me expand
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it the word slime you're objecting too? If not your post makes little sense unless you consider Islamist to be a synonym of Islamic or Arab/Asian/Middle Eastern. A better comparison would perhaps be Tory slime, fascist slime or lib dem Slime.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Yup
> 
> Go on.



There's not much more to say really your lies are fairly clear you accused frogwoman of accusing supporters of Gallahway of being islamists and provided no evidence, then you accused me of calling you islamist and provided no evidence.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> There's not much more to say really your lies are fairly clear you accused frogwoman of accusing supporters of Gallahway of being islamists and provided no evidence, then you accused me of calling you islamist and provided no evidence.


 Is there much else you could of meant by Dexterlamist other than him being Islamist or supporting them/ being an opportunistic cunt?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

CNT36 said:


> Is there much else you could of meant by Dexterlamist other than him being Islamist or supporting them/ being an opportunistic cunt?



Dexterlamism is an extreme political ideology based on posting shit on message boards whenever GG is mentioned.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 8, 2013)

i made a comment about some of galloway's pals, not everyone who supports him ffs. Also islamist is completely different to islam ffs


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 8, 2013)

islamism is a political position, it's not the same thing as islam.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 8, 2013)

benedict said:


> The broader issue you raise concerning the Left's moral outrage about Israel as compared to other states is an interesting one I think. Various rationalizations could be provided; the best one is the "moral responsibility" stance since our government is a good ally of Israel and we can affect UK policy (in theory).



This has bothered me for a while. The thing is that you could also apply it to support for, for example, Turkey or Indonesia or Saudi Arabia, but people don't.

I think people just end up seeing this stuff like it's football or something, Israel is on one side and the Palestinians are on the other


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

Andrew Lodstaff said:


> Actually, the term Islamist is problematic. Many Muslims, including those who reject the 'Islamist' groupings, would probably not accept that a clear dividing line exists between Muslim and Islamist.


Give us an example then. And i don't mean and islamist one because they definition they think muslims must be islamists. Let's get this done in your binge phase.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

Andrew Lodstaff said:


> I can't really, it would be anecdotal.
> 
> It's only an opinion, though. Nothing to get hot under the collar about.
> 
> It will all come out in the wash anyway.


If you can't then don't post assertion as fact. See you next time.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 8, 2013)

Andrew Lodstaff said:


> It wasn't meant to be the final word on the matter.
> 
> All I meant was, as far as my limited understanding of the subject and personal experience goes, both 'Islamists' and those Muslims who seem opposed to them (fewer, actually, than we are led to believe-but don't quote me...) can find justification for their views in the holy writings.
> 
> God seems to be a major part of the problem.



It would have been useful if you had said that the first time then all the extra posts could have been avoided.


----------



## white rabbit (Sep 9, 2013)

It could be because Israel is seen as a western enclave in the Middle East and part of an imperial project. The savage treatment it metes out to the Palestinians and to others is secondary. The left is always going to be opposed to the US's hegemonic enterprises for obvious reasons. This just happens to be one of them. Actually, this seems to be the primary focus along with the rest of the Middle East. South and Central America has been left to get on with it's own devices and has been pretty much turning red ever since.

[e2a: this was meant to be a reply to benedict's comment: I do think that the Left's focus on this and other international causes is symptomatic of a much wider malaise.]


----------



## revol68 (Oct 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> > oh god. was it you that thought that all women were overreacting at gg's 'sexual etiquette' gaffe, and then tried to tell urban that fucking people while they're asleep is a god-given right, and anyone who disagrees is a shrill, hysterical humourless?
> > or am i confusing you with a different poster
> 
> 
> I think that was Revol68, but I might be wrong.



Yes you are wrong, very wrong. You better apologise for this slander.

That is not something I ever said nor be likely considering my attitude toward gender politics or George Galloway.

How I could be mistaken for Casually Red is beyond me, we don't see eye to eye on anything.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 17, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Yes you are wrong, very wrong. You better apologise for this slander.
> 
> That is not something I ever said nor be likely considering my attitude toward gender politics or George Galloway.
> 
> How I could be mistaken for Casually Red is beyond me, we don't see eye to eye on anything.


Fair enough. 

I am a very sorry for my mistake.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 17, 2013)

revol68 said:


> Yes you are wrong, very wrong. You better apologise for this slander.
> 
> That is not something I ever said nor be likely considering my attitude toward gender politics or George Galloway.
> 
> How I could be mistaken for Casually Red is beyond me, we don't see eye to eye on anything.



I've always thought he is a sock puppet you created to express your darkside


----------



## audiotech (Oct 17, 2013)

From the election in 2005 who was threatened by Islamists:



And another nutter from the opposition:


----------



## danny la rouge (Nov 6, 2013)

Galloway apparently couldn't be bothered filing accounts for his charity:



> The Charity Commission have booted a George Galloway fundraising appeal off the charity register after they, errrr, neglected to file any accounts. Viva Palastina has now been ordered to provide financial records for the years from its founding in 2009 to 2012.



http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/...ted-off-charity-by-regulators-viva-palestina/


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Galloway apparently couldn't be bothered filing accounts for his charity:
> 
> 
> 
> http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/...ted-off-charity-by-regulators-viva-palestina/


 Bad accounting etiquette.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 24, 2013)

Hes got a new telly show up and running now, on RT. Sputnik its called . And a very good show it is too .


----------



## andysays (Nov 24, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Hes got a new telly show up and running now, on RT. Sputnik its called . And a very good show it is too .



Given George's previous bad accounting etiquette, is it coincidence that the title of his new telly show is an anagram of "spunk it"?

It's a cheap gag, but someone had to make it


----------



## JHE (Nov 24, 2013)

Sputnik?  Is Earth now being orbited by the honourable and indefatigable member for Bradford West?


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 24, 2013)

JHE said:


> Sputnik?  Is Earth now being orbited by the honourable and indefatigable member for Bradford West?




the very man

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/11/promo-sputnik-with-george-galloway-gayatri-pertiwi-on-rt-com/


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 24, 2013)

Here's episode one:


I made it to 1 minute 27 seconds but couldn't ride out the Sean Connery impression.


----------



## manny-p (Nov 25, 2013)

Galloway and the word cunt go hand in hand.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Hes got a new telly show up and running now, on RT. Sputnik its called . And a very good show it is too .



I see he's got his missis a gig as well, what a gent etc


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Nov 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I see he's got his missis a gig as well, what a gent etc



Gallows was bad enough (see previous remark about his Sean impersonation), but the discourse between them as presenters was like a fucking bad Richard and Judy.  Truly, cringingly awful.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2013)

I quite like the opening sequence though, it reminds me of PC games circa 1998


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2021)

He's voting Tory


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2021)

editor said:


> He's voting Tory
> 
> View attachment 256824


i'd not noticed before how his avatar makes him look like a droog.


----------



## Sue (Mar 1, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd not noticed before how his avatar makes him look like a droog.


Hat's not quite right. And I suspect he's missing the requisite eye makeup.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2021)

Sue said:


> Hat's not quite right. And I suspect he's missing the requisite eye makeup.


a rather aged and shabby droog


----------



## Sue (Mar 1, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> a rather aged and shabby droog


TBF, aren't we all.


----------



## vanya (Mar 1, 2021)

George Galloway: I'm Voting Tory
					

A putative leftist voting Tory? What kind of mixed up place is this? Welcome to the convoluted world view of Labourist unionism as manifes...




					averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com
				






> A putative leftist voting Tory? What kind of mixed up place is this? Welcome to the convoluted world view of Labourist unionism as manifested by our old friend George Galloway. Getting himself trending on the Twitter, he announced to the interested how he'll be voting Tory in the constituency section of the coming Holyrood elections. This is followed by a punt for his Alliance for Unity vehicle, itself an ego mobile _and_ a popular frontist, um, front for his Stalin-worshipping Britnat sect, the Workers Party of Britain. To think he has the _chutzpah_ to call others out for abandoning socialist ideas.
> 
> The politics of this aren't hard to fathom, but they might seem weird for comrades unfamiliar with the Scottish scene. Scottish Labour, despite dalliances with Home Rule and being the party of the Holyrood devolution settlement, is a thoroughly unionist party. In the post-war period the might of the labour movement rested on the Scottish economy being fully integrated into the UK's, and the Keynesianism practiced by successive Westminster governments more or less maintained full employment. Labourism which, among other things, is the spontaneous empiricist mindset of the workers' movement therefore identified its prosperity with the union and the necessity to return Labour governments to govern for them. As the post-war order fell apart and along came Thatcher's governments with a new settlement of their own, the Tories dismantled the material and institutional base for unionism. Politics lags behind economics so the old teachings go, and by 2007 the success of the SNP at Holyrood put the establishment on notice. They didn't listen and thanks to Labour's cretinous behaviour in the independence referendum, almost torched its entire base. What remained of Labour vote was old, nostalgia-tinged, and mourning for a unionist settlement long dead.
> 
> ...


----------



## 19sixtysix (Mar 4, 2021)

He ain't no socialist.  Voting tory could be the first honest thing he's done.
The only thing galloway is schooled in is keeping the galloway show on air.
He's a selfish cunt and should be starved of media air.


----------

