Galloway: offing Blair "justified"

[Gentle Giant]

Guy's a kook, but he's not an idiot.

Galloway: Blair's death would be justified
By David Stringer, Associated Press Writer | May 26, 2006

LONDON --Maverick British politician George Galloway has claimed it would be "morally justified" for an assassin to target Prime Minister Tony Blair, but he said he was not advocating an attempt, according to a magazine interview published Friday.

Galloway was quoted as saying an attack on Blair that caused no other casualties would be a justifiable response to Britain's support for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"It would be entirely logical and explicable -- and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did," the monthly GQ magazine quoted Galloway as saying.

However, if he knew anyone was planning such an attack, Galloway added, he would tell police.

Galloway, currently in Cuba, verified the accuracy of his comments in a statement posted on the Web site of his political party, Respect.

"I think it's best that we say nothing. We may say nothing, but we think plenty," Blair's official spokesman, who speaks only on condition of anonymity, said by telephone from Washington, where Blair met with President Bush.

Galloway was kicked out of Blair's Labour Party in October 2003 for urging British soldiers not to fight in Iraq.

He later founded his party and won a new seat in the House of Commons in 2005, representing an east London suburb with a large Muslim population. During his campaign, he denounced the invasion of Iraq and called for the withdrawal of coalition troops.

Galloway defended his comments in a statement on his Web site and said it would be possible for those in Iraq who had "seen their country invaded" to construct a moral justification for the killing of Blair

"But I've made my position clear. I would not support anyone seeking to assassinate the prime minister," he said.

Menzies Campbell, the leader of Britain's third-largest political party, the opposition Liberal Democrats, said Galloway's comments risked "providing encouragement" to a would-be assassin.

"No politician, ever, by act, word, or deed, either expressly or by implication, should give any support to the notion that violence might be justified," Campbell said in a statement.

Galloway spent three weeks last year starring on the reality TV show "Celebrity Big Brother" and was ridiculed for scenes in which he lapped up imaginary milk and purred like a cat.

His decision to participate in the program -- away from his duties in Parliament and alongside a topless model, an androgynous pop singer and former NBA star Dennis Rodman -- resulted in criticism from constituents and lawmakers.

In his magazine interview, Galloway claimed to been the best fighter at his school, and said he would like to go a few rounds with both Blair and Bush.

"I'd take them both at once," Galloway said.

"That's what really upsets me. They are the sort of men who are ready to fight to the last drop of other people's blood. They couldn't personally punch their way out of a paper bag. They send other mothers' sons to their death, and I find them both deeply repugnant," he said. This I agree with. GG

Last May, Galloway called a congressional subcommittee "the mother of all smoke screens," after he traveled to the United States to deny accusations he had profited from the U.N. oil-for-food program.

[sonic1]

Wow! He has balls.

I certainly understand his sentiment, though I don't know how saying such a thing in print is going to help his reputation or his plight. He really just corners himself with this one.

He has balls, but what an idiot. And a bit hypocritical too.

[Pedantic Wretch]

I think Galloway echoes the sentiments of much of the British population on this one. Unfortunately, assassinating Blair would achieve nothing, since there is a reserve army of Blairites to take his place, including his likely successor Gordon Brown (or as I prefer to call him, Thatcher Mk. III).

[Scott Dolan]

Did anybody catch the Axis Of Feeble cover on The Economist last week?

They have had some of the greatest covers of all time the last couple of months.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

I think Galloway echoes the sentiments of much of the British population on this one.

Of course you do.

[Scott Dolan]

PW is always so crabby.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Of course you do.

Why don't you return to chortling at the prospect of more Palestinian deaths; maybe it will help bring about The Rapture™ more quickly.

[jeff54]

This is the part I found hypocritical

"Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island's Communist dictator, Fidel Castro - whom he defended as a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys".

Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced."

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Why don't you return to chortling at the prospect of more Palestinian deaths; maybe it will help bring about The Rapture™ more quickly.

Now you see, I can't tell: is that you saying this or are these the sentiments of much of the British population?

[Scott Dolan]

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Now you see, I can't tell: is that you saying this or are these the sentiments of much of the British population?

I take it you think you have have a better feel for what people in the UK are thinking than someone living there has. At least you're consistent.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Now you see, I can't tell: is that you saying this or are these the sentiments of much of the British population?

If Blair and his Opus Dei education secretary got their way, the British population would indeed believe in The Rapture. They're currently encouraging private Evangelical charities to set up creationist schools with state money. Nothing like turning back the intellectual clock a few hundred years.

[Brian Olewnick]

Just a point of clarification: Opus Dei are Roman Catholic loons who, as far as I understand, don't believe in the Rapture which is the provenance of fundamentalist Protestant loons.

[Monte Smith]

PW's confusing his Da Vinci Code with his Left Behind.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by PWrench

If Blair and his Opus Dei education secretary got their way, the British population would indeed believe in The Rapture.

Originally Posted by (Ollie)

Just a point of clarification: Opus Dei are Roman Catholic loons who, as far as I understand, don't believe in the Rapture

Originally Posted by Satan

PW's confusing his Da Vinci Code with his Left Behind.

Oopz!

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Just a point of clarification: Opus Dei are Roman Catholic loons who, as far as I understand, don't believe in the Rapture which is the provenance of fundamentalist Protestant loons.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I don't see the contradiction between membership in Opus Dei in her private life and promoting creationism by way of evangelical organizations as part of her job. Wrong, bad, stupid, but not contradictory

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

I don't know if it's true or not, but I don't see the contradiction between membership in Opus Dei in her private life and promoting creationism by way of evangelical organizations as part of her job. Wrong, bad, stupid, but not contradictory

Could well be. I was singling out The Rapture, which I doubt (I could be wrong) any self-respecting (contradiction-in terms alert) Opus Dei member would countenance. I'd guess most Rapture-believing Protestants would consider Catholics out of the picture as a matter of definition. There's only 144,000 allowed in a Rapture, right?

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Could well be. I was singling out The Rapture, which I doubt (I could be wrong) any self-respecting (contradiction-in terms alert) Opus Dei member would countenance. I'd guess most Rapture-believing Protestants would consider Catholics out of the picture as a matter of definition. There's only 144,000 allowed in a Rapture, right?

I think my previous post still counters these point. PW is positing that more people believing in the Rapture as a direct consequence of the policies this lady is pursuing in an effort to promote creationism.

Opus Dei->crazy lady->creationism->crazy evangelicals->the Rapture(->Blondie?)

Btw, I had to look up what the Rapture is and what catholics think of it. I always get it confused with final judgement or end times, but I just read up on what it is. This is the same thing Jehova's witnesses believe. My dad once asked a distant cousin who is a JW if it wasn't counterproductive to proselytize so much since that would leave less room available on the 144,000 occ. Rapture Express. No answer.

[Brian Olewnick]

Could be maybe an unintended consequence. One of the base differences between fundamentalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants, I think, is the latter's tendency to read the Bible literally while the former goes more with interpretive instructions as laid down by Rome. They may coincide in a given instance, they may not (neither seems to take the "turn the other cheek" directive to heart). Maybe the Opus Dei lady is saying, "Let those silly Protestants worry about the Rapture, as long as they do my creationist bidding in the meantime."

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Just a point of clarification: Opus Dei are Roman Catholic loons who, as far as I understand, don't believe in the Rapture which is the provenance of fundamentalist Protestant loons.

Yes, I am well aware of this distinction. My point was that the Blair government just loves 'faith schools' of any denomination, since any irrational ideology is preferable to critical thought. Despite the fact that church attendance has been in decline here for the last century, these worms still have a habit of insinuating their way to the centre of the establishment.

I mentioned the Rapture to Monte because he seems to be so besotted with the neoconservatives; whether he shares their religious leanings I am unsure, but I can imagine him being filled with rapture in the noble presence of e.g. Dick Cheney.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

I mentioned the Rapture to Monte because he seems to be so besotted with the neoconservatives....

Hiccough.

[ormsbop]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick
There's only 144,000 allowed in a Rapture, right?

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

Btw, I had to look up what the Rapture is and what catholics think of it. I always get it confused with final judgement or end times, but I just read up on what it is. This is the same thing Jehova's witnesses believe. My dad once asked a distant cousin who is a JW if it wasn't counterproductive to proselytize so much since that would leave less room available on the 144,000 occ. Rapture Express. No answer.

Not to beat the dead horse of a topic that is of interest to no one, but as a point of fact, neither JWs nor Evangelicals teach rapture/salvation is restricted to 144,000. I'm not so sure that JWs even have a rapture theology. As a former Pentecostal I'm more familiar with the evangelical side of things (LeHaye, Lindsay et al) and I can say they have completely different eschatologies.

Yes I know, zzzz. Carry on.

[Brian Olewnick]

Orms, I do find it pretty fascinating from a psychological point of view. I don't keep up on this stuff but a brief google on "rapture" and "144,000" led me to a text that mentioned that Jehovah's Witnesses did indeed consider themselves as part of that 144,000 (Revelations 7:4, btw--I wasn't even sure the exact number was mentioned biblically) and, in fact, kept their membership around that level for a while many years back.

Amazing. I keep meaning to ask my hyper-Catholic in-laws who idolize GW whether or not they think he'll get to heaven, not being RC and all. I imagine there's an especially comfortable sector of Purgatory reserved for heroic but misguided souls.

[Daniel]

[ormsbop]

Daniel: Who dat?

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Orms, I do find it pretty fascinating from a psychological point of view. I don't keep up on this stuff but a brief google on "rapture" and "144,000" led me to a text that mentioned that Jehovah's Witnesses did indeed consider themselves as part of that 144,000 (Revelations 7:4, btw--I wasn't even sure the exact number was mentioned biblically) and, in fact, kept their membership around that level for a while many years back.

Brian: You're probably right, but as I recall from conversations with a JW couple they also have a salvation hierarchy so to speak. The super spiritual ones (i.e. Watchtower elite) go to heaven to rule with Christ. But the regular door knockers are also saved and live for eternity here on paradise earth. The proselytizing tracts I've seen seem to focus on the latter scenario. I'd imagine since becoming part of the elite is slim to none. Maybe they tried to keep the Watchtower elite to a certain number but not the regular worker bees.

As I mentioned this is very different scenario than the "Left Behind" theory.

Amazing. I keep meaning to ask my hyper-Catholic in-laws who idolize GW whether or not they think he'll get to heaven, not being RC and all. I imagine there's an especially comfortable sector of Purgatory reserved for heroic but misguided souls.

huh, I wonder why they admire W? They're Philippino right? So are my in-laws. My brother-in-law is a prof at the Univ of Philippines and he's totally against the Bush admin.



Edit: It's probably just coincidence this was my 144th post....


.......or is it? :-O

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by ormsbop

huh, I wonder why they admire W? They're Philippino right? So are my in-laws. My brother-in-law is a prof at the Univ of Philippines and he's totally against the Bush admin.

That your brother-in-law is a prof at UP probably answers the question right there! My in-laws would be more likely to be found nailing themselves to crosses for that annual ritual.

Well, not that bad, but if most of them were asked who they admired more, one of those, er, penitents or a UP prof, I'm not sure what the answer would be....

[Tom Storer]

Getting back to the original post, note that the headline is completely wrong: Galloway didn't say the assassination of Blair would be justified, he said it would be "morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did." Since he presumably feels that ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people is a very bad thing, then he is saying the assassination of Blair would not be justified at all--but that if Blair were assassinated, his assassin would be no worse than Blair is himself.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Getting back to the original post, note that the headline is completely wrong: Galloway didn't say the assassination of Blair would be justified, he said it would be "morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did." Since he presumably feels that ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people is a very bad thing, then he is saying the assassination of Blair would not be justified at all--but that if Blair were assassinated, his assassin would be no worse than Blair is himself.

Thank you Tom. That was the way that I interpreted the remarks made by Galloway. He didn't say that Blair should be assassinated.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

Getting back to the original post, note that the headline is completely wrong: Galloway didn't say the assassination of Blair would be justified, he said it would be "morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did." Since he presumably feels that ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people is a very bad thing, then he is saying the assassination of Blair would not be justified at all--but that if Blair were assassinated, his assassin would be no worse than Blair is himself.

The first line of the article is

Maverick British politician George Galloway has claimed it would be "morally justified"

The morally justified is in quotes. If Gallaway did indeed use that term then the headline isn't really wrong.
The article also quotes Galloway as using the term "morally equivalent" further down.

[willy]

How come the left is nuanced and reads between the lines only when it helps their cause?