It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


It is not the hardware of military weapons that frightens me, It is the hatred that makes people wan

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:58 AM
It is not the hardware of military weapons that frightens me. A gun can't go off by itself. It is the hatred that makes people want to use them.

That is the fuel of war. To deny that would be delusional. Addressing the reasons for this anger and fundamentalism is of utmost importance, a perspective our Machiavellian media is absolutely tragic at addressing.

So we call our actions military operations, yet any resistance we find from the indigenous people is what? Just evil terrorism with no other real motives? War on terror or war of terror? There has to be a motive somewhere along the line that is not raw hatred and terror. We have to address what these reasons may be to progress.

A fine case in point of a person demonized from the media for trying to help people understand why these in-humain actions are carried during a foreign occupation is George Galloway.

He does make a point of stating the bleeding obvious sometimes, warning people that when invading a country that they will likely find continual resistance from the people. It is not in-sighting violence. He tries to explain why such attacks happen, usually historically or using an Islamic mindset. His conclusion always being that the victims of invasions always tend to defend what they see as their land from foreign occupiers.

Nothing more, nothing less. It's a matter of historical record.

Yet every time he tries to explain why our forces are met with resistance the media attacks him as if he is supporting their murderous actions.


Galloway is in fact rather good at getting those mirror neurons firing in the public to help understand why these people are doing what they are doing. As deluded as they may be, there is always a more convincing reason (historical or empirical) other than raw hatred and terrorism.

BBC: Was it wise to say, as you said "it's not the muslims that are the terrorists, the biggest terrorists are Bush and Blair.

Galloway: Well that's my view. I was elected on that view. I have a mandate for that view. You may not like that view, but it is my view.

BBC: So Tony Blair has brought destruction to London?

Galloway: I am telling you the truth as I see it. It is my duty to do so, and I did it in the house of commons on the day of the bombing. The entire media and leading political class fell on top of my head. I was insulkted on news-night by Gavin Estler who said I was crass. The sky fell in on me, and I was even insulted on the today program.

BBC: But you said the fault lies with the people that carried out the attacks. So you are condemning the attacks that were carried out in London?

Galloway: Well. I'm almost insulted by that question. I'm bound to say how dare you ask me that question.

BBC: Well, the reason that I ask it is because the language you employed in numerous television channels could be seen to some as a justification for what they plan to do?

Galloway: Madam. If I say that a car has four wheels. And ford motor company says it has four wheels; that doesn't make me a part of the ford motor company.

BBC: When you said in your broadcast that the insurgents are martyrs what did you mean?

Galloway: Well a martyr, whether in an insergency or the Iraqi resistance, is dead. Whereas the Iraqi resistance are very much alive.

BBC: Ummm. You have said that two of your beautiful daughters are now in the hands of foreigners in Baghdad and Jerusalem, and the foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. Some arab countries are collaborating with the rape of those two beautiful arab daughters. Why did you choose to use such inflammatory language? Which according to your critics, put the lives of British soldiers at risk.

Galloway: Well I don't think there are any soldiers occupying Jerusalem, or Baghdad for that matter. I believe that Baghdad is illegally, illicitly and violently occupied by the united states. I believe that Jerusalem is currently occupied by General Sharon. I'm not alone in that view.

BBC: you're not alone in your view about wanting to end British troops in Iraq, and there are other politicians that have argued the same, but not in terms of the language you employed. Let me finish. You talk of Arab countries collaborating with the rape of two innocent civilians. Are you prepared to take the flak for fanning the flames of an already dangerous situation, purely for the fact of young british youths who may think well here is our justification for staging suicide bombings and going to Al Queda training camps ?

Galloway: Don't you dare try to place responsibility for that on me. I am the person who if listened to we would not have been in this mess. We wouldn't be in Iraq. It should be me accusing you not you accusing me.

/end argument.

Galloway 1.
Media 0.

That clip:

Also: George Galloway Savages SKY NEWS!

George Galloway vs. US Senate (5/17/05)

Best of George Galloway VS the Mainstream Media + US
(if youtube have banned it again here is a direct mediafire download of the clip)

Hope you enjoy

edit on 28-11-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:22 PM
America is not the terrorist, Israel is not the terrorist, Muslims are not the terrorists.
Radicals who believe you should either conform to their beliefs or die are the terrorists.

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:25 PM


log in