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.

 

Galloway supports Blair’s murder

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
All I can say is: OMG. I always knew this guy was as corrupt as one could be, now his degradation into a common criminal (terrorist?) is complete.

Galloway Jutsifies Blair's Murder



The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."


I wonder what will be done over this?


[edit on 26-5-2006 by skippytjc]

[edit on 26-5-2006 by skippytjc]




posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Skippy,


...
Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened ...

*emphasis mine.

Perhaps you should change your title to something better supported by the Actual statement made by Mr. Galloway.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
True. Galloway only supports Blair's murder. Not calls for it.

Regardless, Galloway is an idiot. I lost what little respect I had for him when he pulled the stunt of appearing on celebrity big brother.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Skippy,


...
Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened ...

*emphasis mine.

Perhaps you should change your title to something better supported by the Actual statement made by Mr. Galloway.




I dissagree.

Yes he said those words, but the very fact that somebody of Galloways stature and position states in a very public manner that the killing of a nations leader is jutsified, is very much calling for that murder. He can say that he isnt calling for it all he wants, but how many people out there wont even hear that? All that they will hear is that Galloway supports the death of Blair. So in effect he is very much calling for it.

Imagine, think about it: A government official announces that he thinks the murder of his leader is justified.

Of course he is calling for it!



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I hold a lot of respect (pun not intended) for George because he speaks his mind as a politician and doesn't care whether he's PC or not and I believe we need more of that.

Also, he didn't say he wanted Blair assasinated, to say that he did is nonsense. It's all over the news as we speak. I wish the media would give it a rest sometimes.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Good for Galloway. He is absolutely right. Shame he has to always be misrepresented.

Now why is there a problem with what he says?

If Blair had done the decent thing and apologised and resigned when it became clear his case for war was "sexed up," I believe many lives would not have been lost.

He put his vanity above the lives of others and of course those that have family that died as a result of Blair's actions are going to be angry.

Wouldn't you want to kill anyone that killed your family based on a tissue of lies and refused to say sorry?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
changed the title to something that fits his "literal" words more accurately.

But I want to make this point:

Galloway is a political leader and has a dedicated following, as is perfectly clear by the responses to this thread. Only ONE of his followers needs to hear these thoughts and perceive these as a direction to kill Blair to very much mean that Galloway is calling for Blair’s death, regardless of the actual words spoken.

Galloway’s followers are all but cultish in their dedication to this man. How irresponsible is it for a man in that position to even think about saying such things, let alone doing so in the media?

He has, in effect called for Blair's murder, whether he thinks so or not.


FACT: If I called the Boston Globe right now and said the same words about Bush, how long do you think before I would get a visit from the authorities? 30 minutes? an hour or so? And do you think they would laugh it off when I explained to them that "im not actually calling for it, im just saying its justified..." and let me go? What if I had tens of thousands of people who looked at me as a hero? Should the secret service just ignore that? Hardly.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Skippy, I think you need to change the title of this thread again.

respectcoalition.org...



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Skippy if you want to use that argument we could say Bush called for the killing of American troops by saying "bring it on."

You could say Bush calls for the killing of Americans by going out of his way to give credibility to Bin Laden tapes calling for more attacks on America.

Your flaw is that you think there is only one side to the matter of Iraq. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. Hundreds of children have had their limbs blown off and babies are deformed because the country has been listed with cluster bombs and DU.

What did they ever do to Tony Blair? Life in Iraq is cheaper than a British life is it?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clipper
Skippy if you want to use that argument we could say Bush called for the killing of American troops by saying "bring it on."

You could say Bush calls for the killing of Americans by going out of his way to give credibility to Bin Laden tapes calling for more attacks on America.

Your flaw is that you think there is only one side to the matter of Iraq. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead. Hundreds of children have had their limbs blown off and babies are deformed because the country has been listed with cluster bombs and DU.


HIt the nail on the head there Clipper.


That comparison is completely justified. Morally indistinguishable viewpoints no matter what the warmongers say.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Galloway will be thrown out of Parliament and probably will face charges of treason.

its likely that he will loose his seat, his own Party are not standing by his comments.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clipper
Good for Galloway. He is absolutely right. Shame he has to always be misrepresented. Now why is there a problem with what he says?


uh .. he's right to support the cold blooded murder of an innocent
human being?
That's just plain wrong. Oh .. and he isn't being
'misrepresented'. His exact statement is for all to see .. that he
supports him being murdered, which in this case is assassination of
the leader of England.

More 'brilliance' from the whack. No surprise there I suppose.


He probably ran out of all that illegal oil $$$ he received so now he's
got to chat something up for some attention and more $$$.
BTW - he got it. Don't even try to post denials. He's a criminal.





[edit on 5/26/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Skippy I think your thread title is misleading. Galloway made it clear he did not support the assasination of Blair--he merely said it would be justified. I personally want to rip the man's tongue out, but he seems to know just where to draw the line with his comments.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Hey - is an Assassinations in da name of Democracy GOOD?


U.S. GOVERNMENT ASSASSINATION PLOTS

1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader

1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany
to be "put out of the way" in the event of a Soviet invasion

1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life

1950s, 1962 - Sukarno, President of Indonesia

1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea

1953 - Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran

1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader

1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India

1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt

1959, 1963, 1969 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia

1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq

1950s-70s - José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life

1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti

1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)

1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic

1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam

1960s-70s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life

1960s - Raúl Castro, high official in government of Cuba

1965 - Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader

1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France

1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader

1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile

1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile

1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama

1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence

1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire

1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica

1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life

1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran

1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander

1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua

1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate

1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)

1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq

1993 - Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia

1998, 2001-2 - Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant

1999 - Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia

2002 - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Afghan Islamic leader and warlord

2003 - Saddam Hussein and his two sons

Hmmm, pretty nice list.

Well let's also examine the Definition of Terrorism, as United States defines it:


Terrorism

2. Appear to be intended:
  • to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
  • to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
  • to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping;

So that we know what the word Terrorism means.

Just to clear this up.

But apparently SOME Countries can perform Ter-or-ism on several levels and get away with it, right?

I am sure that there are plenty of Angry Iraqi's who would want to harm PM of UK - well, he should take a road trip through Basra and check out how the People love him there. Anyway, mister Galloway did not say, he WANTS him assassinated did he?

But I am sure that he is making many Enemies with each and every day in Power.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I don't know if the British system is the same as in the US. In the US, the President is Commander in Cheif of the military, and i supposed that that means he is not a civilian. But isn't Blair a civilian? How is murdering civilians justified? Blair didn't make this war on his own. Is the murder of everyone that voted for it in parliament justified? Galloway says that the 7/7 attacks were unjustified, because 'innocent' people were killed. If a civilian killed in that attack had supported the war, was their murder justified?

Is the death of any iraqi civilians in the iraq war, as a result of US military action, jsutified if they were anti-US? Can teh US Army now round up and execute anyone that doesn't support through votes and money the government there?

Galloway seems quite a bit off track, but then again, what can anyone expect from a politician, on either side of the debate, they're almost all scum.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The British Crown is the Commander in Cheif of the British Royal Army i.e the Queen is in charge of the British Army and she is not a ciziten. The British Parliament voted on going to war, not Blair.

Galloway is looking for reasons to get a one-on-one with Blair, but his comments will simply get himself expelled. Its interesting (as i posted in the UK Politics section) that his own party, RESPECT, have not stood by him. They have said nothing.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Clipper
Good for Galloway. He is absolutely right. Shame he has to always be misrepresented. Now why is there a problem with what he says?


uh .. he's right to support the cold blooded murder of an innocent
human being?
That's just plain wrong. Oh .. and he isn't being
'misrepresented'. His exact statement is for all to see .. that he
supports him being murdered, which in this case is assassination of
the leader of England.

More 'brilliance' from the whack. No surprise there I suppose.


He probably ran out of all that illegal oil $$$ he received so now he's
got to chat something up for some attention and more $$$.
BTW - he got it. Don't even try to post denials. He's a criminal.





[edit on 5/26/2006 by FlyersFan]


George Bush supports the killing of murderers does he not?

Millions of honourable people regard the slaughter of Iraqis by Bush and Blair's illegal war as murder.

Go figure.

As for oil allegations, there is not a shred of credible evidence.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Galloway is looking for reasons to get a one-on-one with Blair, but his comments will simply get himself expelled. Its interesting (as i posted in the UK Politics section) that his own party, RESPECT, have not stood by him. They have said nothing.


Expelled by whom? Galloway is the only MP in his party that mostly hate Blair's guts, so who is going to expell him? Of course they would support him. It does not sound like you have even read the interview, or Galloway's response.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clipper
Expelled by whom? Galloway is the only MP in his party that mostly hate Blair's guts, so who is going to expell him? Of course they would support him. It does not sound like you have even read the interview, or Galloway's response.


There are watchdog commitees for MPs and also, Parliament is the Queens Parliament and they take an oath to her. Making reference to a killing of the Queens Prime Minister is breaking the oath. Its unprofessional and stupid what he said. He should be thrown out of Parliament. Simple.

And it would be suicidal for his party to come supporting him over comments about killing the Prime Minister.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by infinite]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by Clipper
Expelled by whom? Galloway is the only MP in his party that mostly hate Blair's guts, so who is going to expell him? Of course they would support him. It does not sound like you have even read the interview, or Galloway's response.


There are watchdog commitees for MPs and also, Parliament is the Queens Parliament and they take an oath to her. Making reference to a killing of the Queens Prime Minister is breaking the oath. Its unprofessional and stupid what he said. He should be thrown out of Parliament. Simple.

And it would be suicidal for his party to come supporting him over comments about killing the Prime Minister.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by infinite]


Don't make me laugh! Watchdogs! We are talking about Bush's lapdog who has betrayed Britain and the Labour Party. Galloway is a true patriot, just answering a question. He said he would not support the killing of Blair and he would report any such plot to the police.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join