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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by ShazamsChampion
He also didn't call for Chavez to be murdered, he just said "well since he always accuses us maybe we should"


No, actually Pat Robertson did. Where do you get your "quotes" from?


"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club.

www.usatoday.com...

Galloway's comments are still wrong, but they happened in a very different context and in a different way of saying, and can't really be compared.


Jahmuhn you can excuse his comments anyway you want, the fact is, both were wrong, both were indefensible, and both of them are pure D idiots.
But at least Americans didn't elect Roberts to congress.




posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShazamsChampionJahmuhn you can excuse his comments anyway you want, the fact is, both were wrong, both were indefensible, and both of them are pure D idiots.


I couldn't agree more. I've constantly said the same so I don't know why you think I'm excusing anything. I'm merely trying to provoke the situation to be described as it is instead of as one and the same as Robertson's comments.


But at least Americans didn't elect Roberts to congress.

Actually, they did elect Pat Roberts to Congress, and I don't like him either. But, I think you mean Pat Robertson. He's the one who did call for the Venezuelan president to be murdered.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn


I couldn't agree more. I've constantly said the same so I don't know why you think I'm excusing anything. I'm merely trying to provoke the situation to be described as it is instead of as one and the same as Robertson's comments.

My apologies then I must have confused you with someone else.



Actually, they did elect Pat Roberts to Congress, and I don't like him either. But, I think you mean Pat Robertson. He's the one who did call for the Venezuelan president to be murdered.


D'oh

My bad.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Galloway said that assasinating Tony Blair would be "morally justified", he didnt say that he should be assassinated. He was prompted by the interviewer as to whether or not he thought it would be justifiable, if no innocent bystanders were hurt. Use your brains for christ sake, he was asked a very specific question and he gave a truthful response. He even went so far as to say that he would go to the police if he had information of such a plot.

Galloway's answer was backed up with the rationale that Tony Blair pursued a foreign policy that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. So he has blood on his hands and is a legitimate target. What is there not to understand?

But of course this is all being portrayed as an out-of-the-blue rant by George Galloway whereby he is calling for Tony Blairs assassination. This is, of course, a complete fabrication along the lines of the Iranian government requiring Jews to wear yellow patches on their clothing. Yet, as with that story, it is being peddled by the corporate media and lapped up by the ill-informed.

Remind me again, why would it not be morally justified to attack Tony Blair for what he has done in Iraq?

Osama Bin Laden is blamed for the deaths of less innocent civilians than Tony Blair's Iraq war has caused. How many of you have a moral problem of Osama being assassinated?

[edit on 27/5/06 by subz]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Galloway's answer was backed up with the rationale that Tony Blair pursued a foreign policy that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. So he has blood on his hands and is a legitimate target. What is there not to understand?


Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's? Come on Subz you know that is a gross exaggeration. The policies being pursued by Blair are the U.K.'s policies, not his personally. Furthermore, the vast majority of the Iraqi casualties are the result of Iraqi -vs- Iraqi actions and not the actions of coallition forces. So specifically what blood does Blair have on his hands that makes him a legitimate target that one would be morally justified in killing? Do your comments mean the members of Parliment are also justifiable targets and the Queen as well?


But of course this is all being portrayed as an out-of-the-blue rant by George Galloway whereby he is calling for Tony Blairs assassination. This is, of course, a complete fabrication along the lines of the Iranian government requiring Jews to wear yellow patches on their clothing. Yet, as with that story, it is being peddled by the corporate media and lapped up by the ill-informed.


The title of this thread is inaccurate (as has been pointed out), the media published the story as news--which it is--and yes, some people around the world have misconstrued the story and used it to justify attacks on Galloway.


Remind me again, why would it not be morally justified to attack Tony Blair for what he has done in Iraq?


Because it would be murder.


Osama Bin Laden is blamed for the deaths of less innocent civilians than Tony Blair's Iraq war has caused. How many of you have a moral problem of Osama being assassinated?


Again, it isn't Tony Blair's war, it is the concerted actions of the U.K. Government.

I for one would have a problem with the assasination of Osama Bin Laden. He needs to be arrested, tried and convicted by a court of law before he is killed. You really cannot consider the actions of Blair & Osama as morally equivalent.

[edit on 27/5/06 by subz]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
No, actually Pat Robertson did.


- This is absolutely true, and when called on it he then went on to claim maybe a kidnapping would be the better option.


Galloway's comments are still wrong, but they happened in a very different context and in a different way of saying, and can't really be compared.


- Exactly.
George Galloways comments were stupid and wrong but he did not actually call for anyones' murder - or kidnapping for that matter.....and being accurate about what he really said is not to "defend" him either.

Given Pat Robertson's actual comments and the actual comments of George Galloway it is perfectly consistant to criticise both men but it is only right that people confine that criticism to what they actually said.

As opposed to the agenda-driven fantasy some wish to imagine and claim that they said.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
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.


Which guy are you refering to?



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Galloway was way out of line and totally wrong. You dont suicide bomb/assasinate Tony Blair, you put Blair up on charges of high treason for selling the UK out to the EU and the US then you put him against the wall and have him publicly shot.

All legally that is.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
ermmmm...so the british condone assasination of politicians....



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Immoral Equivalence


From the source article:

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."

If Mr. Galloway has evidence that Mr. Blair ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, I suggest he provide it.

Such an order would necessarily need to be documented, because I seriously doubt UK troops would execute innocent people by indirect word of mouth.

If anyone reading this has evidence that Mr. Blair ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, please don't hesitate to post it.

Without evidence of such an order, Mr. Galloway's honesty is subject to reasonable doubt.

Immoral Authority

He also claims that the assassination of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be morally justified.

This statement indicates that Mr. Galloway's concept of morality is incompatible with the laws of his own country and the expressed moral consensus of the people of the United Kingdom.

Consequently, I cannot consider Mr. Galloway an authority on morality, because his statements exemplify its antithesis.


From Dictionary.com

im·mor·al
adj.

Contrary to established moral principles.

It has been established in the United Kingdom that assassinating the Prime Minister would be immoral.

Mr. Galloway is claiming that it would be "morally justified" and "entirely logical and explicable".

For him to do so is immoral, illogical and inexplicable.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's? Come on Subz you know that is a gross exaggeration.

One hundred thousand or one innocent Iraqi, the number is completely irrelevant.


Originally posted by Astronomer70
The policies being pursued by Blair are the U.K.'s policies, not his personally.

He is the leader of the government. The buck stops with him.


Originally posted by Astronomer70
Furthermore, the vast majority of the Iraqi casualties are the result of Iraqi -vs- Iraqi actions and not the actions of coallition forces.

Those actions would not of occured had we not invaded Iraq.


Originally posted by Astronomer70
So specifically what blood does Blair have on his hands that makes him a legitimate target that one would be morally justified in killing?

He was, and still is, the leader of the British government. He personally outlined the rationale for invading Iraq, a country which had not attacked Britain. A country that had no intentions of attacking Britain. The war was personally described as illegal under international law to Mr.Blair by his own Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

Knowing this, he led the push for a British military invasion of a sovereign nation that had not attacked Britain or her allies.


Originally posted by Astronomer70
Do your comments mean the members of Parliment are also justifiable targets and the Queen as well?

Yes, and yes. Does that mean I want to see them assassinated? No and no. But if you're talking about legitimate targets here I have to accept that they are legitimate targets. The converse being that innocent British civilians are NOT legitimate targets. As such I wholeheartedly hope that any prospective suicide bomber would turn their attention away from blowing up civilians and either target military targets or the politicians who ordered the invasion of Iraq.


Originally posted by Astronomer70
The title of this thread is inaccurate (as has been pointed out), the media published the story as news--which it is--and yes, some people around the world have misconstrued the story and used it to justify attacks on Galloway.

Finish the thought, why are people attacking George Galloway and blowing this story out of proportion? It's because Mr. Galloway is a thorn in the side of the truly corrupt and immoral, the likes of Tony Blair and the grossly immoral global banking elite.


Originally posted by Astronomer70
Because it would be murder.

Ok, im up for an excercise in semantics. It is not murder at all, it is a response akin to self defence or protecting your loved ones. If some one was in charge of an army that was killing Americans would you see the assassination of its command structure as murder or self defence? If Tony Blair wasnt responsible for any deaths then it would be murder, but since he IS responsible (as leader of the British government) he is fair game.

Afterall, we're in a War on Terror right? That means that we are in a state of War, hence there must be atleast some legitimate targets on our side, right? And im damned if they're ever going to be innocent civilians.


Originally posted by Astronomer70
Again, it isn't Tony Blair's war, it is the concerted actions of the U.K. Government.

Tony Blair is the Prime Minister, he is the leader of the British government. The Queen is a figurehead with no powers aside from ceremonial. As such he alone brought the issue to a vote in the House of Commons. He alone could of declined the US Governments request for assistance. He alone could of kept Britain out of the Iraq invasion. He is responsible


Originally posted by Astronomer70
I for one would have a problem with the assasination of Osama Bin Laden. He needs to be arrested, tried and convicted by a court of law before he is killed. You really cannot consider the actions of Blair & Osama as morally equivalent.

I agree with you there, I dont even want to see Tony Blair killed. I am not advocating the killing of any one, but then again thats not the topic. It's whether its morally justifiable or not, and I think it is.


Originally posted by Majic
If Mr. Galloway has evidence that Mr. Blair ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, I suggest he provide it.

Such an order would necessarily need to be documented, because I seriously doubt UK troops would execute innocent people by indirect word of mouth.

If anyone reading this has evidence that Mr. Blair ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, please don't hesitate to post it.

Without evidence of such an order, Mr. Galloway's honesty is subject to reasonable doubt.

I dont believe that is an accurate depiction of cause and effect.

There's a man thats cutting through a cable cars wire. The cable car plummets to the ground killing all inside. "I didnt kill them, I only cut some wire".

What exactly are the consequences of authourizing your military to invade a sovereign nation? We were actually told that innocent people will inevitably be "collateral damage" and that it was unfortunate but unavoidable. To claim that Tony Blair is not responsible for the deaths of innocent Iraqis because he didnt expressly order their deaths is preposterous.

Unless evidence can be provided that no innocent Iraqi's have died due to the Iraqi invasion, or that Tony Blair didnt advocate/condone the Iraq invasion - he is responsible for their deaths. Simply because he had the authourity to prevent Britain from sending troops and bombers into Iraq, and he did not excercise his authourity in that manner.


Originally posted by Majic
He also claims that the assassination of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be morally justified.

This statement indicates that Mr. Galloway's concept of morality is incompatible with the laws of his own country and the expressed moral consensus of the people of the United Kingdom.

Consequently, I cannot consider Mr. Galloway an authority on morality, because his statements exemplify its antithesis.

Invaiding countries that have not attacked us is also contrary to the morals of Britain, yet Tony Blair, as the leader of the British government did just that. He did this knowing full well that the British people overwhelmingly dissapproved of it. What conclusions can be drawn from that line of thought?


Originally posted by Majic
It has been established in the United Kingdom that assassinating the Prime Minister would be immoral.

Established by whom? It's illegal, but not neccessarily immoral. Colonel Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg broke the law when he tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler, that was against the law but it certainly wasnt immoral.

[edit on 28/5/06 by subz]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Question to Galloway:

Who has Blair killed?...i recall, its the British Army that was sent to Iraq and it was they who killed Iraqi troops. Not Blair.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Question to Galloway:


So the British Army just up and decided to go on holiday to Iraq and start killing people then, did they? Blair sent them, Blair and his cabinet of Turds are responsible.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Question to Galloway:

Who has Blair killed?...i recall, its the British Army that was sent to Iraq and it was they who killed Iraqi troops. Not Blair.

Oh dear, with that logic we better call off the search for Osama. He didnt kill any one personally either.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Oh dear, with that logic we better call off the search for Osama. He didnt kill any one personally either.


Let's not forget ending the trial of Saddam. I think he only ordered the attacks.

I am really confused on why this is still going on. I was thinking about it, and for me, it came down to: this is a war. a war has two sides. both sides have targets. this MP only said what was blatently obvious. was he off kilter a bit? maybe. I think Mr. Blair already knows he would be a target, I think most people would.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Whats the big who ha about what Galloway said? He was just making a valid point that it would be morally justified. I personally wouldn´t want it to happen as it would cause a war most probabley of some sort. But really Blair is a fool who has made some terrible decisions which has led to the deaths of thousands, if he died i wouldn´t shed a tear.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
ermmmm...so the british condone assasination of politicians....


legal execution of traitors. There is a difference.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Ok, i want to clear few things for my self:
1)Isn't Blair highest military authority in UK and in direct/indirect command of the UK Military forces
2)if 1 is true, he is a soldier and that makes him a legitimate target for an act of war.
Because a killing a general of your enemy isn't illegal, why should the man above him be immune?

same goes for Bush and every Head of state who is the CinC of their army...



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Finish the thought, why are people attacking George Galloway and blowing this story out of proportion? It's because Mr. Galloway is a thorn in the side of the truly corrupt and immoral, the likes of Tony Blair and the grossly immoral global banking elite.


No, it's because Galloway has shown time and time again that he has total and utter contempt for everyone but himself.

Though I must admit, it has been blown out of proportion. I mean, it's no diferent to Lord Haw-Haw calling for Churchill's assassination.....

(And for the record, I can't stand Blair either.)



Originally posted by northwolf
Ok, i want to clear few things for my self:
1)Isn't Blair highest military authority in UK and in direct/indirect command of the UK Military forces
2)if 1 is true, he is a soldier and that makes him a legitimate target for an act of war.
Because a killing a general of your enemy isn't illegal, why should the man above him be immune?



No, the Supreme Commander of the UK Armed Forces is HM The Queen. The Prime Minister is a civilian with no miltary position whatsoever.

Also, we are not at war, so any muder of any person in the UK, whether they be civilian or military, is murder and morally unacceptable.

We're no longer living in the Dark Ages here in Britain. Though Galloway wishes we were....

[edit on 30-5-2006 by Essan]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Some questions for British citizens on this board:

1. How is Galloway generally regarded in Great Britain? Is he starting to be considered a little off the deep end; or does he actually have a decent percentage of folks who consider him a valid opposition voice?

2. I have heard discussions that say he has been implicated in some of the scandals involving the United Nations (oil for food for example). Is there any truth to these stories?

3. Is it rare for Parliament members to be expelled? In other words, what is the probability of this happening to Galloway?

Thanks in advance for your insights.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join