[RANT] Galloway: Blair's death would be justified

[Good Sir Knight]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060526/ap_on_re_eu/britain_galloway

 

Oh and he was so politicaly correct about saying it. This guy never ceases to amaze me, whatever your view on the war in Iraq I think this guy is both a coward and a traitor to his country.

 

He's also so smug I'd love to slap that power moustache off his face.

 

There were also rumors/accusations that he was in bed with ol Saddam...makes you wonder why he's been such a fervent war critic from the get go.

[rccar328]

Galloway, currently in Cuba,

 

This was the line that jumped out to me. Is this guy just another leftist Commie wacko? If so, why should anyone pay any attention to him?

[Good Sir Knight]

Ah yes Cuba..of course... like Venezuela they are just darlings on the world stage now... they even sit on the Human Rights counsel.

 

No one cares though and Galloway would like to see his leader die while he visits a country well known for it's oppression.

 

Makes me want to vomit....

[ShadowTemplar]

Blair is the head of government of a country that is engaged in a de facto war against a foreign country, and a de facto occupation of another foreign country. Irrespective of the legality of said war and occupation, that makes him a legitimate target for Iraqi and Afghani military action.

 

Under the numerous precedents set by both the CIA, the GRU, and the MI6 during the Cold War, military activities include 'wet job' intelligence operations.

 

The logic of Galloway's statement is airtight. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the US, UK, USSR and Russian Republic are all breaking international law... And I did think that I was the one making that point...

[Good Sir Knight]

Oh sure his logic is air tight and within the rules of warfare from my perspective though that's not my point...

 

Oh and he was so politicaly correct about saying it.

 

 

I'm wondering which side this Galloway is on. The terrorists and despots of the world? (i.e. Cuba/Iraq Insurgents) or his home country?

 

That's the question and that's why in my oppinion he is a traitor.

 

Why must we look at things with such extreme moral relativism? Can't people judge what right and wrong is and go in that direction?

 

Oh and the occupation is no longer (if it ever was) de facto, the UN has recognized it and it has a presence there along with every major government around the world.

 

The terrorists would have you believe that it's defacto, they would also advocate you shooting Blair so I think they're doing quite well.

[Datheus]

I'm wondering which side this Galloway is on. The terrorists and despots of the world? (i.e. Cuba/Iraq Insurgents) or his home country?

I'm real tired of this whole "sides" concept. It's just a bunch of rhetoric. There are no sides. There are only dogs who purport there to be sides and the sheep that polarize against each other accordingly.

 

This isn't a sports game or an epic World War II movie. This is the real deal, and it is exactly this binary logic that is tearing countries like Iraq and Afganistan apart.

 

There are lessons abound to be learned. Why aren't we doing so?

[Good Sir Knight]

I'm real tired of this whole "sides" concept. It's just a bunch of rhetoric. There are no sides.

 

Really? Care to site at least some type of evidence aside from the existential rantings of your poli sci teacher?

 

The moral relativism in here is choking me....

 

There are only dogs who purport there to be sides and the sheep that polarize against each other accordingly.

 

So you don't recognize that there are two different sides to the abortion issue?

 

Are you saying the feminists advocating abortion are nothing but dogs? Sounds a little offensive....

 

This isn't a sports game or an epic World War II movie.

 

You don't have to tell me that, John Wayne was not deployed to the Middle East with my family.

 

This is the real deal, and it is exactly this binary logic that is tearing countries like Iraq and Afganistan apart.

 

Please don't speak to me like a child, I'm well aware of the gravity around these issues.

 

For an indepth look at why Iraq and other nations (Yugoslavia) are falling apart, you can take a look at Pat Buchanan's, The Death of the Nation-State by following this link:

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan43.html

 

There are lessons abound to be learned. Why aren't we doing so?

 

You tell me Datheus.. your post sounded very pretty but it really didn't illustrate a clear stand on anything other than refusing to believe that there are two sides to a debate, two sides to a war....

[ShadowTemplar]

Oh sure his logic is air tight and within the rules of warfare from my perspective though that's not my point...

 

Well, then what are you bitchin' about Good Sir Knight? Oh, and by the way, would you mind telling me what the real text of the real Geneva Convention means to your position vis-a-vis the legality, legitimacy, and moral rectitude of the Guantanamo Bay Prison Holding Facility?

 

Oh and he was so politicaly correct about saying it.

 

 

I'm wondering which side this Galloway is on. The terrorists and despots of the world? (i.e. Cuba/Iraq Insurgents) or his home country?

 

I'm pretty sure he's on the side of his home country. As The Mad Biologist puts it: These days, you can be a good American, and you can be a good Repbulican. But not at the same time.

 

That's the question and that's why in my oppinion he is a traitor.

 

 

Why must we look at things with such extreme moral relativism? Can't people judge what right and wrong is and go in that direction?

 

I was of the distinct impression that he did judge for himself what was right and wrong. He may have come to a conclusion that you personally find distasteful, but I hardly think you can accuse him of not taking a moral stand.

 

Oh and the occupation is no longer (if it ever was) de facto, the UN has recognized it and it has a presence there along with every major government around the world.

 

Really? Last time I checked, the UN had recognized the new Iraqi and Afghani governments, which have then legally and legitimately invited the foreign troops. Under those conditions, what we're looking at is not - legally - an occupation and a war, rather it is a pair of UN sanctioned governments asking for assistance in training their police and armed forces and policing their territories against organised criminals.

 

Of course, you know that's a legal fiction, I know that's a legal fiction, the UN knows that's a legal fiction, and the Iraqi government knows that's a legal fiction. As to whether the White House knows it's a legal fiction, I'm less sure. They don't seem to know much of anything about Iraq...

 

The terrorists would have you believe that it's defacto,

 

Actually, I don't really think the - uh - 'terrorists' give a good goddamn what I think about the legal status of the occupation of Afghanistan and the war against Iraq. They have to realise - unless they are terminally stupid - that the technical legal status has very little to do with actual policy making in the occupying and attacking countries. After all, if the legal status of those operations had mattered with regard to actual policymaking, there would not be US forces in Iraq at this date...

 

they would also advocate you shooting Blair so I think they're doing quite well.

 

Point the first: I do not advocate shooting Blair. Neither does Galloway, AFAIK.

Point the second: I do not appreciate being accused of supporting the shooting of Blair simply because I point out that someone employed by the Iraqi insurgents would be legally permitted to do so. That happens to be a fact that not even you and rccar question, and I happen to think that simply stating incontrovertable facts should not be held against a person.

Point the third: You can shoot the messenger all you like, but that won't make the truth untrue.

 

The moral relativism in here is choking me....

 

Would you mind telling the rest of us what you think 'moral relativism' means? Oh, and while you're at it, do enlighten us as to the consequences of the Geneva Convention on the legality of Guantanamo.

 

Originally Posted by Datheus

There are only dogs who purport there to be sides and the sheep that polarize against each other accordingly.

So you don't recognize that there are two different sides to the abortion issue?

 

No. In point of fact, I don't even acknowledge that there is an issue - save that of parochial barbarism against civilisation. But then again, that's hardly an issue - after all, secular, democratic civilisation wins hands down. Point, set, match, case closed, can we go home and drink beer now?

 

You don't have to tell me that, John Wayne was not deployed to the Middle East with my family.

 

But the wife of The Questionable Authority was. And if that's your litmus test for the legitimacy of criticism against the utterly inept, criminally incomptent (and plain criminal) conduct of the White House vis-a-vis Operation Iraqi Screwup, I suggest that you Google some of his other posts on the topic.

 

And while I'm recommending The Questionable Authority, you should check some of his posts on creationism.

 

Please don't speak to me like a child, I'm well aware of the gravity around these issues.

 

For an indepth look at why Iraq and other nations (Yugoslavia) are falling apart, you can take a look at Pat Buchanan's, The Death of the Nation-State

 

Recommending 'Presidential Candidate' Buchanan's drivel is hardly indicative of awarenes 'of the gravity around these issues'... Nor, for that matter, is it indicative of a developed and sensitive bull****-o-metre to consider Buchanan something worth linking to. The man is a historical revisionist, who favors lying to the public. Hardly a shining beacon of credibility...

 

There are lessons abound to be learned. Why aren't we doing so?

You tell me Datheus.. your post sounded very pretty but it really didn't illustrate a clear stand on anything other than refusing to believe that there are two sides to a debate, two sides to a war....

 

 

Pics in this post courtesy of Winace, Who Shall Be Missed.

 

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to explain the consequences of the Geneva Convention to your views on the moral rectitude of Guantanamo, and I'd appreciate if you'd share your definition of 'moral relativism' with us, because it sure isn't the same definition as the one the reality based community uses...

 

And, yes, I will keep asking you this 'till they're ice skating in hell if you don't answer.

[edlib]

... refusing to believe that there are two sides to a debate, two sides to a war....

There can always be more than 2 sides. Not every issue breaks down into a nice, neat dichotomy.

 

Personally, I believe there are currently about 6.6 billion (give or take...) slightly different points of view on any particular issue, or sides if you prefer that term.

 

No two people raised from birth in different cultures under different circumstances will ever see the world in exactly the same way. As it is, you'd be hard pressed to find two people raised under very similar circumstances, perhaps under the same roof, to take the same side on every debate.

 

If you choose to see that multitude of perspectives as 'Moral Relativism', so be it. I just happen to think it's the reality of the world we inhabit.

 

So, I would turn it back to you: If there are only 2 sides fighting in this war, what exactly are they? I've been a little unclear on this from the start.

 

Seems to me, right now, our forces are fighting a lot of quite different, and at best loosely connected groups with radically different goals and motivations that we have chosen to term: "Terrorists" or "Islamic-Fascists." (Not that any of them even see themselves that way,.. just like we don't go around thinking of ourselves as "The Great Satan" either.)

 

If I just happen to think that some of the choices our leaders have made concerning these conflicts were wrong, that we were lied to about the reasons for being there as well as the urgency for action, and that we probably shouldn't even be engaged in one of them at all, well then,.. that automatically puts me on the side of the terrorists?

 

Well, I guess that's good to know... except that I don't believe it will ever do me any good if I'm ever faced with being in the way of a terrorist attempting to carry out his mission. I doubt I'd ever be recognized as an ally.

 

See... I don't think that disagreeing with our side naturally puts me on their side. That's a false dichotomy. There can always be more than 2 points of view.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Really? Care to site at least some type of evidence aside from the existential rantings of your poli sci teacher?

His point was that reality isn't as Bush put it ("either with us or against us").

 

Critizising one side doesn't mean you supoprt the other side. The world just isn't that black-and-white. As was said, this isn't a stupid Hollywood movie where you're either 100% good or 100% evil. Sure, it's a convenient card to pull if you're being attacked ("you're not 100% with us so you must be the enemy"), but it's not the way things are.

 

Oh and the occupation is no longer (if it ever was) de facto, the UN has recognized it and it has a presence there along with every major government around the world.

When did you start listening to the UN anyway? When it agreed with you:confused:?

 

Would you mind telling the rest of us what you think 'moral relativism' means?

Yes, please do. I'm lost, too.

 

That's the question and that's why in my oppinion he is a traitor.

Especially since he made it clear that he wouldn't ever support the shooting of Blair.

[Mike Windu]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

 

 

 

I had to.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I was going to say that:mad:!

 

[Samnmax221]

Ah yes Cuba..of course... like Venezuela they are just darlings on the world stage now... they even sit on the Human Rights counsel.

Hugo's a real dousch, so is Galloway apparently

[ShadowTemplar]

Personally, I don't like Chavez much, but he is less bad than the rest of the options on the Venezuelan ballot, and he was democratically elected - which is more than can be said for a certain other autocratic él Prezidenté on the American continents...

[Samnmax221]

Personally, I don't like Chavez much, but he is less bad than the rest of the options on the Venezuelan ballot, and he was democratically elected - which is more than can be said for a certain other autocratic él Prezidenté on the American continents...

It's been speculated (and of yet it's still speculation) that voting may have been rigged in the 2004 recall referendum, and when you consider theat most of the people ending up in Venezualan prison are oposition party members you begin to wonder why that might be. This guy is just another asshole in the mold of Jaun Perón only he's a leftwinger this time.

[ShadowTemplar]

I'm tired of neo-con-men spouting the bull**** they're spoon-fed by Fux News and the other regime-controlled propaganda ministries on the US airwaves. If you want serious news, tune into http://www.theonion.com and http://www.dailykos.com for American domestic news, and BBC World Service for foreign news.

 

In the meantime, let me dispatch this particular bit of mindlessly retyped propaganda to the netherworld where trolls go when people stop feeding them:

 

Congressional elections in December resulted in a landslide victory for President Chávez’ party, after opposition parties refused to take part, accusing the electoral body of bias. The elections were largely regarded as fair by international observers.

 

Link:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/ven-summary-eng

 

Not my fault that he's not a reich-wing, pro-US yes-man. In point of fact, consensus among the observers cited by the Danish newsies is that the left-wing landslide we see over most of South America is caused by the disastrous (and atrocious) incompetence with which the US imposed half-witted, half-baked, untested bull**** notions such as gold standard, massive privatisation, supply-side economics, and ruinous foreign exchange (Argentina being case in point).

 

Not to mention the outragous exploitation - and there really is no other word for it - of South American natural resources by US-based corporations given rip-off deals by corrupt pro-US yes-men over the past couple of decades.

 

For that matter, the reaction should hardly be surprising. After all, the backlash to Soviet-style leadership in Russia is largely caused by the idiotic 'shock terapy' that was imposed on Russia in the wake of the collapse of the USSR. If anything, what's surprising about South America is that it is so relatively democratic - everywhere else in the world that's been subjected to the kind of 'shock terapy' employed against South America and the former USSR has turned to man-on-horseback-politics.

[toms]

Darn those democratic elections that keep producing results we don't like....

 

I thought we got past calling people "leftist commie whackos" back in the early nineties.. [/timewarp]

 

Galloway is a bit of an egomaniac idiot sometimes.. but he's also been consistent throughout on his position on iraq. If, as he has always claimed and there is some evidence to support, Tony Blair ordered an illegal war in which 35,000 civilians have been killed then you can see why heid believe that Blair was a legitimate target.

After all, saddam and bin laden are considered legitimate targets by our governments for similar orders that they have given.

 

@GSK: Grow up with the sides thing already! We aren't five year olds anymore. Weren't you the one who accuased me of being on "their side" for saying that guantanamo prisoners who had been helf for 4 years without charge were justified in rioting?

There is a whole range of opinions, and just because someone might disagree with one, or even many, of the actions of the government doesn't make them "one of them".

 

You seem to keep forgetting that that is how democracy and freedom works.. allowing everyone to expresst heir views and make criticisms.

[ShadowTemplar]

@GSK: Grow up with the sides thing already! We aren't five year olds anymore.

 

I second that motion.

 

Weren't you the one who accuased me of being on "their side" for saying that guantanamo prisoners who had been helf for 4 years without charge were justified in rioting?

 

In all probability, yes. Him or rccar.

 

Oh, and by the way:

 

Furthermore, people in Gitmo were captured on a battlefield known as Afganistan. When someone is taken into custody during a war by a Geneva Convention signatory they are awarded rights only if:

 

1. They have papers proving that they are a soldier with a Geneva signatory.

 

2. They are wearing a uniform.

 

Funny that... Which Geneva Convention do you refer to? I happen to have found the text of the Geneva Convention that the rest of us refer to... (and that wasn't too hard either). I quote:

 

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

 

[...]

 

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

And:

 

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

 

Please, do comment on this turn of the evidence. I would really like to see you try to weasel your way out of ignore outright appropriately consider this very much unbiased and primary evidence.

 

 

 

Pic courtesy of WinAce, who shall be missed.

 

Oh, and while we're at it: What is your definition of 'moral relativism?'

[Samnmax221]

I listen to BBC world service all the time, we only get it late at night on Wisconsin Public Radio. For another matter I'm not a Neo-con I'm a Republitarian. For yet another matter when one of the international observers is the Carter Center you tend to wonder (I have little respect for anything associated with Peanut Boy), and not to mention Chavez recently passed a law making criticizing public officials illegal, so much for freedom.

 

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

This may enlighten you

[toms]

Are leaders morally acountable for actions carrie dout in their name, or resulting from their decisions - even if they didn't personally authorise, or even want them?

 

Like those US soldiers who masacred 26 odd Iraqi civilians including grandparents, women and children. Are the leaders that sent them into that situation in any way responsible, morally if not legally, for such consequences? Or the bombing of that wedding party a few years back?

[Samnmax221]

Like those US soldiers who masacred 26 odd Iraqi civilians including grandparents, women and children. Are the leaders that sent them into that situation in any way responsible, morally if not legally, for such consequences? Or the bombing of that wedding party a few years back?

Untill the report comes out I'm not going to condemn them, you are innocent untill proven guilty in this country. Though I know they probebly did do it it I'm not going to start putting noose's around their necks just yet.

[Mike Windu]

The clear answer to toms rhetorical question, in my opinion, is no.

 

Otherwise, God has some major things to deal with.

[toms]

Untill the report comes out I'm not going to condemn them, you are innocent untill proven guilty in this country. Though I know they probebly did do it it I'm not going to start putting noose's around their necks just yet.

 

Innocent until proven guilty... thats a novel idea....

[edlib]

Yeah, that's a good one.

 

It just doesn't apply to all the folks we are holding at Gitmo and other facilities around the world, or the leaders of regimes we've decided to target... does it?

[Mike Windu]

Double standards, anyone?