It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

George Galloway accused of Perjury!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He was against liberating
Iraq

The good old sheep sound bits. Our goal wasn’t to liberate Iraq it was about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the threat Saddam posed to the united states neither of which turned out to be true. If the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated they had the ak47’s,grenade launchers and roadside bombs to do it themselves. I'm against liberating any country at the expense of even one American Soliders life. Imperialism at it’s finest.




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Our goal wasn’t to liberate Iraq it was about Weapons of Mass ...

It was about both. You can ask the Kurds about WMD. Saddam used
it on them. You can ask the Iraqis about mass murder and mass torture,
it was used on them. They are VERY glad to be rid of Saddam and to have
freedom.

After WWII the world saw the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and
we all said 'never again'. Well, it was happening again in Iraq. Yet the
UN said not to go in. They said that because they were on the take and
getting paid off in billions by Saddam who was stealing from the Oil for
Food program (and thus killing even more Iraqis).

When the world said 'never again' ... standing by and letting Saddam
mass murder would have been letting it continue AGAIN. That would
have been wrong.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Ok never again? Then why do we let genocide happen all the time in Africa and never do a dam thing about it? Plus didn't he gas his own people before the weapons inspectors even got there? So pre 1991? If he even did it there is some good debate on that issue since it was a cynide based gas and not mustard gas that killed them but that aside it was years ago. The should have got his ass for that back in 91. Never again my ass Genocide happens all the time and we never do anything about it unless oil or israel is involved.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Then why do we let genocide happen all the time in Africa and
never do a dam thing about it?

We shouldn't. The world shouldn't. When dictators mass murder
people then the world needs to step in. Rwanda, Uganda ....


The should have got his ass for that back in 91.

You betchya' 'they' should have. Bush41 wanted to go to Bagdad
when we liberated Kuwait but the UN said that all we could do was
to push the Iraqi troops out of Kwait and so that's all Bush41 did.
If we could have finished the job 15 years ago then none of this
would be happening now.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Can we get back on topic please,

I look forward to seeing George kick the criminal cabal that claim to be the elected government in the teeth over this. The chicken-hawk regime will back down, this is to get the sheeple to look the other way while the Neo-Cons run from their indictments that will be all over the white house like a cheap man made flu.




Galloway challenges the US Senate committee to charge him


The Respected MP George Galloway has thrown down a challenge to the US Senate homeland security committee to charge him with perjury and "I'll see you in court".



It is understood that senior Iraqi members of the deposed regime have made statements to the committee, including Tariq Aziz, Taha Yasin Ramadan, the former vice-president of the country, and Amer Rashid, the former oil minister.

"I've never met Ramadan or Rashid but I do know that they are facing charges which may carry a death sentence. As is Tariq Aziz. He has been held incommunicado for two years - and we know what goes on in US-controlled prisons in Iraq - and we also know from his lawyers that he has been offered a deal to testify," said Galloway.

"On the one hand the US government accuses these men of being homicidal maniacs, on the other they assert that their coerced testimony is utterly trustworthy. Well, let Senator Coleman bring them and his unnamed sources to court in a case against me, and we'll see what the world concludes."





Galloway rejects senate perjury claims


"I am demanding prosecution, I am begging for prosecution," Mr Galloway told Sky News. "I am saying if I have lied under oath in front of the senate, that's a criminal offence. Charge me and I will head for the airport right now and face them down in court as I faced them down in the senate room.

"Because I publicly humiliated this lickspittle senator Norman Coleman - one of [George] Bush's righthand men - in the US senate in May, this sneak revenge attack has been launched over the past 24 hours."

Link





Galloway challenges US senators

The Respect MP ridiculed the senators' claims during a hearing in May.




And this is why Coleman is so upset



Galloway vs. The US Senate: Transcript of Statement

Snip~~

I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001.

I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.





[edit on 26/10/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
So basically we couldn’t find any excuse that worked to get the scum bag out of office so we had to drag up stuff from years ago and fabricate evidence to justify the invasion. Let's see WMD, WMD Programs and now liberation. Much the same as the Bush administration fabricates stories to discredit the ones who stand up against it. But hey the ends justify the means but we often forget "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." How has going to hell benefited the american people?


cjf

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
UN accuses Galloway and the Weir Group



THE controversial MP George Galloway and one of Scotland's leading companies were last night facing the threat of prosecution after they were named in a devastating United Nations report into the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.
The report identified Mr Galloway as a political beneficiary of the oil-for-food programme and concluded that thousands of pounds from companies involved in oil deals with Saddam Hussein's regime were paid into the Mariam Appeal which Mr Galloway chaired and which funded his anti-sanctions campaigning…..

...By: GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN, KEVIN SCHOFIELD, EDWARD BLACK -- 28-Oct-05


It appears the US is now not alone if there is this is creditable.

.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
It's obvious that the OSI has it's mind manipulators like skippy hanging around here. That's something that irks me to no end. They interfere in free and open discussion. They get a masters degree in psyc and a job in a dark room, and set about trolling and manipulating thought.
I know many of them personally and they actually love what they do. I believe in State secrets- I know enough of them, but free public discussion shouldn't be interferred with. Leave the people alone, they're just trying to make sence of the madness. OSI crosses the line and like many in the Pentagon have said " it scares the hell out of me when I read their briefs and reports." Lying to the people and working to decieve them is contrary to everything I believe in. It's unamerican.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

UN accuses Galloway and the Weir Group.


Hmm, now it's getting interesting. Well, we'll see what happens and if they actually lay charges. If he truly is guilty, then he deserves what he gets.


Originally posted by shot messenger
It's obvious that the OSI has it's mind manipulators like skippy hanging around here. That's something that irks me to no end. They interfere in free and open discussion. They get a masters degree in psyc and a job in a dark room...


Don't worry, skippy's not manipulating much except maybe the decor in his mom's basement. As for a "master's degree"...? Have you read his posts??


[edit on 2005-10-29 by wecomeinpeace]


JAK

posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
OK enough of the personal comments please, the focus here is George Galloway and the accusations levelled at him.

Thank you.

Jak



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Greg Pallas came out against Galloway sometime ago saying he was a fraud and should be exposed as such before he did damage to the left. Galloway stood him down (of course).

Thatcher went after Scargill 10 yrs after she won, and he was totally exonerated. You can't say the same of her son. Bush's gang seem equally vindictive.

I don't know if Galloway has had his fingers in the pie. It would be a shame if he has because it will do damage to the case against the lunatics in Washington and Westminister. Whether Galloway's guilty or not, Bush and Blair should be doing a life stretch with no possibility of parole for what they've done.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Do people actually realize that the first time the guy came here he was just supposed to be put on record? It wasn't a trial. He wasn't there to have a debate with the Senate. He was just supposed to answer a few questions. The Senate weren't going to go asking him rebuttal questions, or debating the legitimacy of the Iraq war, neither of which were the topic of discussion.

Going off on long winded rants on the morality of the Iraq war when being asked a completely unrelated question isn't impressive. He was basically giving a speech.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Going off on long winded rants on the morality of the Iraq war when being asked a completely unrelated question isn't impressive.


Exactly. He deflected the topic away from him. He tried to
intimidate by being loud and obnoxious. He's a braying donkey
and I can't wait for when the truth about him is all out in the
open!



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Exactly. He deflected the topic away from him. He tried to
intimidate by being loud and obnoxious. He's a braying donkey
and I can't wait for when the truth about him is all out in the
open!

Who's truth flyer?
Mine or yours?
The US's or the UK's?

IMO it will turn out like another Tim Collins.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Going off on long winded rants on the morality of the Iraq war when being asked a completely unrelated question isn't impressive.


Exactly. He deflected the topic away from him. He tried to
intimidate by being loud and obnoxious. He's a braying donkey
and I can't wait for when the truth about him is all out in the
open!


No you are wrong here. He uterly destroyed them. Everything he said was relevant and he took apart their accusations 1 by 1. Watch it again.
Its about 45 minutes and still around on the net.

Its interesting that at the time he made the comment that, they really needed evidence of him recieving any money to find him guilty of anything and that they obviously had none or they would have presented it then and there.

Well what is this new evidence coming out? Money transfers to his wifes account.

The fact is that he has already had documents falsifed against him. Thats a fact, it was proven.

So now he has to put up with more crudely fasified documents?
Its not acceptable really.

[edit on 30-10-2005 by AdamJ]

[edit on 30-10-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   


Its interesting that at the time he made the comment that, they really needed evidence of him recieving any money to find him guilty of anything and that they obviously had none or they would have presented it then and there.


That's the thing...They weren't there to try him or present the evidence. They were there to simply ask him questions. He was just going on record. It was not a trial/debate as you seem to think.

It's like when a lawyer indicts someone. It's a one sided case at that point. You don't have both sides, you just have the lawyer showing his evidence.

Anything can look good with nothing to compare it to.

Besides that, he did not answer his questions. The fact that he claimed Saddam didn't have WMD's before the invasion has nothing to do with him stealing money from the Oil for Food program.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


Its interesting that at the time he made the comment that, they really needed evidence of him recieving any money to find him guilty of anything and that they obviously had none or they would have presented it then and there.


That's the thing...They weren't there to try him or present the evidence. They were there to simply ask him questions. He was just going on record. It was not a trial/debate as you seem to think.

It's like when a lawyer indicts someone. It's a one sided case at that point. You don't have both sides, you just have the lawyer showing his evidence.

Anything can look good with nothing to compare it to.

Besides that, he did not answer his questions. The fact that he claimed Saddam didn't have WMD's before the invasion has nothing to do with him stealing money from the Oil for Food program.


Nope he answerd most of what they asked him about.
He has never heard of Iridium Petroleum (however it was spelt)
He didnt take money from them
He is not an oil trader, never has been, never will be
The Miriam charities accounts have already been investigated and nothing wrong was found.
He did not suport Saddam Hussain, he has opposed his regime all his life, even at a time when the Americans supported Sadam
The idea he met him 'many' times is false, a deliberate obsfucation, he met him twice only.

My point stands about money, they didnt ask him about any money transfers only accused him of recieving money. Ie: they had no evidence.

I know it wasnt a trial. Come on raise the standards here. I probably shouldnt be responding if thats the level of intelligence you credit me with.


cjf

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
The Miriam charities accounts have already been investigated and nothing wrong was found.
He did not suport Saddam Hussain, he has opposed his regime all his life, even at a time when the Americans supported Sadam
The idea he met him 'many' times is false, a deliberate obsfucation, he met him twice only.

My point stands about money, they didnt ask him about any money transfers only accused him of recieving money. Ie: they had no evidence.

I posted this earlier in the thread which moved the thread-up, read the following link…there is more information coming out now, even after this article.

The full report in the 'oil for food scandal' contains some extremely damning information for Galloway and his wife, of which Imo, the US probably had some foreknowledge.

UN accuses Galloway Weir Group

.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
I posted this earlier in the thread which moved the thread-up, read the following link…there is more information coming out now, even after this article.

The full report in the 'oil for food scandal' contains some extremely damning information for Galloway and his wife, of which Imo, the US probably had some foreknowledge.

UN accuses Galloway Weir Group

.


Im waiting to see how its going to be damning for Galloway, maybe for his wife, but its still a maybe.
I know about the new information, and i have just read the yahoo news story on it.

The only reference to Galloway is these supposed donations to the Miriam appeal of money which came from illegal oil deals.
That hardly constitues enriching himself!
Also this is not a new extremely damning allegation, its the same thing as they accused him of in may, recieving payments to his charity.
The UN even used the same documents to come up with these conclusions the senate did.

Now the charities finances have been investigated already and no wrong doing was found, so i assume that these document they are getting this info from are wrong or forged.

They have mentioned no link between Galloway and the Weir group.

So whats new?

This appears to be just another smear campagin.
According to Galloway they have done it before, faking documents and publishing them on front pages to smear him.

I think he is innocent of everything, the worst they can get on him is that money made from oil deals (maybe even ilegal ones) was donated to his charity without his knowledge.
Thats all and thats the worst case scenario here.
Except for money going to his wifes account, but there is not really any info on that yet.

Surely this is a fuss over nothing, as he says a smokescreen


cjf

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamJ
They have mentioned no link between Galloway and the Weir group.

Why would there be? The title doesn't reflect that, no connection is being made nor implied by the article or to my knowlege anyone else for that matter.

From the previously posted article:


THE controversial MP George Galloway and one of Scotland's leading companies were last night facing the threat of prosecution after they were named in a devastating United Nations report into the Iraq oil-for-food scandal.



Originally posted by cjf
The full report in the 'oil for food scandal' contains some extremely damning information for Galloway and his wife, of which Imo, the US probably had some foreknowledge.


The 'full report' not just the article posted.

IIC Report on the Manipulation of the Oil-for-Food Programme
For a start, go to table III page 22


Originally posted by AdamJ
The Miriam charities accounts have already been investigated and nothing wrong was found.
…….
Now the charities finances have been investigated already and no wrong doing was found, so i assume that these document they are getting this info from are wrong or forged.


Galloway himself declared Mariam was not a charity and the ‘case’ you are referring to is at appeal.


Originally posted by AdamJ
That hardly constitues enriching himself!

Well.......and it appears also 'the finances' have not been 'fully' investigated.


Galloway declared it was not a charity. No wonder: much of its proceeds were spent on his own personal travel costs and on his campaign to lift sanctions on Iraq; but in Zureikat, its chairman, it had a very generous benefactor…..
….Though he has declared that the Mariam Appeal was not a charity, the Charities Commission for England and Wales, which regulates such matters, disagrees. It has the right to regulate whomever it like; and when investigating Mariam last year did not have its accounts. It has now asked for and is being sent documents which the US Senate says proves that a British charity (as defined by the Commissioner) was receiving money from an illegal source. If the Commission agrees, it will pass its findings to the police
Galloway in the Dock




…But the report listed Mr Galloway under "other political beneficiaries". It said that "over 18 million barrels of oil were allocated either directly in the name of George Galloway... or in the name of one of his associates, Fawaz Abdullah Zureikat... to support Mr Galloway's campaign against the sanctions."

It detailed how Mr Zureikat made payments into the Mariam Appeal.
The report noted that the appeal received at least £434,000 from Mr Zureikat. It reported that Iraqi officials identified Mr Zureikat as acting on Mr Galloway's behalf to conduct oil transactions.

It included an allegation that Mr Galloway discussed the workings of oil sales in Baghdad with an oil trader who encouraged the former Glasgow MP to seek an oil allocation, though it noted Mr Galloway had dismissed this as a "cock and bull story".

The 630-page report also provided evidence that Weir Group made $4.5 million of secret payments to Saddam's regime.
UN Accusses Galloway--- Scotsman



Originally posted by AdamJ
Also this is not a new extremely damning allegation, its the same thing as they accused him of in may, recieving payments to his charity.


New? Please show where I claimed this information I posted was ‘new’.
Other than is 'new' in the sense the source was a recent article.

Rather what I posted is 'information’ which now being reinforced and supported as more comes to light.

I originally posted current information to this thread (as applicable).

There is more information now, 'some damning' information is contained in the report, yes?

You placed me in a position to correctly defend my statements….and I still hold my original statment:


Originally posted by cjf
It appears the US is now not alone if this is creditable.



.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join