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.
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.
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.
But at least Americans didn't elect Roberts to congress.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Originally posted by Jamuhn
No, actually Pat Robertson did.
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.
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.
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."
From Dictionary.com
im·mor·al
adj.
Contrary to established moral principles.
Originally posted by Astronomer70
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's? Come on Subz you know that is a gross exaggeration.
Originally posted by Astronomer70
The policies being pursued by Blair are the U.K.'s policies, not his personally.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Astronomer70
Do your comments mean the members of Parliment are also justifiable targets and the Queen as well?
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.
Originally posted by Astronomer70
Because it would be murder.
Originally posted by Astronomer70
Again, it isn't Tony Blair's war, it is the concerted actions of the U.K. Government.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Majic
It has been established in the United Kingdom that assassinating the Prime Minister would be immoral.
Originally posted by infinite
Question to Galloway:
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.
Originally posted by subz
Oh dear, with that logic we better call off the search for Osama. He didnt kill any one personally either.
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
ermmmm...so the british condone assasination of politicians....
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.
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?