Galloway says murder of Blair would be 'justified'

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

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."

The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a persistent critic of Mr Galloway during previous controversies, told The Sun that the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London was "disgraceful and truly twisted".

Just hours after four bomb attacks killed 52 people on London's transport system last July, Mr Galloway said the city had "paid the price" for Mr Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Ten thousand Osama bin Ladens have been created at least by the events of the last two years," he told MPs in the Commons that day.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article601356.ece

This isn't going to help the cause any.

Or put it like this?

But, that's how me-me-me people are.

nt

Things go fine, he says some powerful words that work and speak truth, then his foot suddenly goes diving right in there and messes his message. :shrug:

...the cause is always George Galloway.

nt

He has the worst missed vote record of any MP. Understandable when he went on Big Brother instead of doing the job he was elected to do.

His record is appaling. His political party is nothing more than an ego trip.

Sounds much like the Falwell comment of 9/11 being the result of abortionists, homosexuals, etc., but more of a leftist version.

I really hope dems win the election, but one thing I really hope is that the party does not get dominated by the crazy wing. I don't want to see us become too left wing, or corrupt as this administration/congress has been.

This will help...NOT.

Wasn't there any point between, "Yes, Prime Minister, Sir!" and "#$!^%@!"

Interesting thing...in the US, they'd have done the old "rendition dance" with Georgie, MP or not.

The context has been left out, in the OP;

' Galloway says murder of Blair would be 'justified'
By Oliver Duff
Published: 26 May 2006

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

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."

The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a persistent critic of Mr Galloway during previous controversies, told The Sun that the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London was "disgraceful and truly twisted".'

...with an answer.

But, the important point to remember, who is more deserving of condemnation in this instance?
blair, who is responsible for the deaths of thousands, or Galloway, who has merely answered an
absurd question? Maybe Galloway should have dodged the question, but don't forget that bliar
is responsible for the chaos in Iraq.

...EXACTLY WORDED like that on purpose, right? They knew they'd get him of all people to say something horribly tactless or at least get him to put his foot in his mouth, or both. They baited him and he took it, hook, line and sinker.

He SHOULD NOT have dignified the question, regardless of his or your feelings about Blair.

The intent was to spring a trap, & if Galloway fell into it, he's perfectly able to look after
himself, he'll probably enjoy the attention.

GQ hates Galloway, Galloway hates GQ, GQ luvs bliar, bliar hates Galloway, Galloway hates blair,
& everybodys happy.

;)

judged by the appropriate court, not punished by a lawless murder, but maybe by a state sanctioned killing like those carried out in Iraq".

They can never be morally justified, and they seldom help any situation in the long-term. Making
a martyr of someone can have a rebound effect on the perpetrators.

I was just providing all of the context, the comments are idiotic on their own, but without the
original question they're pretty much incomprehensible. It's clear that Galloways hatred of bliar
has got the better of him in this instance, he's definitely got it wrong.

By those in power, like the Bushes and the Blairs of the world.

You have to connect the dots.

nt

Obviously that would be a valid statement. Eye for an eye and all that. But.....We need to make the mainstream think we are not more nuts than the nuts in power. Not hard to do but very important.

pre-emptive measure", it would be an entierely different issue.

you would see no moral problem in strapping a suicide belt to kill those responsible.

The blood-thirsty reaction of most Americans to 9-11, and their insensitivity to the deaths of innocent civilians in our bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq, are evidence enough of how people would react if it was their loved ones that were killed by a foreign aggressor. Believe me, if the US had been invaded by the French, and the French had done to us what we did to Iraq, we would have self-described patriotic Americans wanting to kill President Chirac out of a sense of patriotism and justice.

Of course, Galloway never advocated Blair's death. Galloway will never do what Blair did to Dr. David Kelly.

that he would underdtand it.

I think that "Ten thousand Osama bin Ladens have been created at least by the events of the last two years," was an accurate statement.

have enough violence in this country.

Galloway knows all about sound bites. He never should have said this to matter what the context.

Always has been.

truthfulness is sick?

there's already been too much death and destruction. Even though Blair is guilty (in my estimation) of serious war crimes deserving of an international tribunal, killing him or any of the other war criminals would not be "morally justified" unless you susbscribe to primitive "eye for an eye" notions of justice.

To which I would give the following rejoinder:

"How many deaths will it take 'til he knows
That too many people have died?"

Or to quote a beautiful protest slogan I saw at several anti-war demos, both pre- and post-Iraq invasion: "An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."

You're right, it's beautiful.

Peace.

It's the same thing as telling the terrorists "Bring it on".

I believe that was the point he was making. Why are people protecting Tony Blair by ignoring the point he was making? People can't be that blind...

Galloway is suggesting that the terroristic murder of a democratically elected head of state is morally justified. That, my friend, is completely despicable.

Did you ignore this: "......It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

Whatever.... I'd say his remarks are on dispicable, because he makes the point that assholes like Bush and Blair are creating perfect excuses for terrorism... kinda like hitting a bees nest and running into your house. Give me a break...

He says that the assassination of Blair is "morally justified", but also that it is "morally equivalent" to the invasion of Iraq; so is he saying that the war in Iraq is equally justified? He either justifies the war or he's a terrible logician.

to jump all over this guy the way you are now. I just don't read his statements the way you did. No way...

I can't stand Galloway. He's a really nasty piece of work. And I've said that since he first came to DU's attention. DU should be saving its respect for principled Labour antiwarriors like Tony Benn, not rabble-rousing Mosley-esque loudmouths like GG.

nt

He's still a thug and a crook.

Your "arguments" against George galloway, as usual, consist of nothing more than ad hominem attacks and character assassination.

If deploring a man's justification of the assassination of an elected Western leader - using the sort of warped moral logic that inspires the people who firebomb abortion clinics - is "character assassination", then so be it.

Doesn't it bother you that the most vocal critics of Galloway here on DU are Brits who have actually been exposed to him for a couple of decades, and don't simply know him from that one instance of theatrics in the Senate?

Still, I don't need to argue against GG, he's his own worst enemy. If you want to talk facts, let's talk facts.

that when you advance criticisms of George Galloway, they always consist of a truly vicious sort of invective and deliberate mis-characterizations of his words. And yet again your post contains none of these facts you refer to, only personal attacks and a particularly weak argument from authority.

Can I make that any factier for you?

But in reality, neither Cherie or George Galloway said what you said they said.

Galloway said that the murder of Tony Blair was morally justified.

Those are completely different positions.

and I would say that the execution of Tony Blair would be morally and legally justified after he is convicted of war crimes, together with his partner in crime Bush.

killing, Galloway justified terroristic killing.

And Galloway did NOT say the same thing as Cherie - Cherie expressed abstract empathy with their position, Galloway said that their position was justified. Those two approaches are NOT THE SAME.

and "terroristic killing" is that the "state" has more money and bigger toys. That said, although I don't know a whole lot about GG he comes off as self-promoting.

about Palestinian terrorists:

Galloway responds to Blair ‘assassination’ row

26/05/2006

“Like the Prime Minister’s wife commenting on suicide bombings in Israel I understand why such desperate acts take place and why those involved might believe such actions are morally justifiable.

"From the point of view of someone who has seen their country invaded and their family blown apart it’s possible, of course, for them to construct a moral justification. But I’ve made my position clear. I would not support anyone seeking to assassinate the Prime Minister. That’s why I said in the interview I would report to the authorities any such plot that I knew of."

“What I did make abundantly clear to Piers Morgan in the GQ interview is that I would like to see Tony Blair in front of a war crimes tribunal for sending this country to war illegally and for the appalling human consequences which resulted. That’s what I will continue to press for”.

George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1086

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/2052948.stm

She said she understood why those acts took place - and later expressed regret at her remarks, something I don't see GG doing - but she did NOT say that they were justified.

of Galloway's words.

His words to me seem to indicate more of an intellectual exercise than an attempt to "justify" the murder of Tony Blair; a theoretical contemplation of the possible moral equivalency between Blair being assassinated by a terrorist and the deaths of thousands in Iraq as a direct result of the war mongering policies of the Blair government.

Are you not capable of at least trying to see the events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in Central Asia through the eyes of those who have long been the victims of British and U.S. aggressions in that region? I think this is more to the point of Galloway's words than any attempt to "justify" the assassination of Tony Blair.

...always has been always will be. Taxloss knows because he actually knows something of Galloway's total history and not just a few snippits that most Americans know him for.

:eyes:

Taxloss knows, therefore the discussion is over. How convenient for those who can't or won't advance a logical and coherent argument. Well BooScout, I reject your argument from authority out of hand. Do you have something one can sink one's teeth into? Some factual information supported by a link or two perhaps?

That both Taxloss and myself both live in the UK. Are apparently better informed regarding UK politcs than your esteemed self and a bazillion incidences where Galloway has stuck his foot in his mouth or perhaps drug it thru dogpoo in his various wheels and deals which btw you can google yourself if you are of a mind to I can't think of a thing to back up our opinion. (Lord give me patience)

Search for his constant examples of stupidity yourself Ronnie. It's not my job to educate you regarding British Politics. :eyes:

Once a thug, always a thug.

:shrug: ?

Even if I don't agree with Tony Blair he is a head of state and thought that going to Iraq was justifiable as did dozens of nations at the beginning. He is eloquent and seemingly a smart man that got duped and is stuck now. I'm sure he was behind yesterdays admissions of mistakes.

He doesn't deserve to die. Especially by a terrorist action that would only serve to galvanize the right-wing base in England and set back the anti-war movement for years.

Galloway is an embarrassment and would be better served by going into TV doing reality skits. Its what he's good at anyway.

He was hungry as hell for new dynamics in the geopolitical area, as in 'creative destructive energy'.

Blair was on to Clinton in '99, until Clinton gave in and provided troops for Kosovo.
BBC's Paul Reynolds:

'George W Bush has brought to his presidency the fervour with which he converted to Christianity during his younger years and the determination with which he suddenly gave up drinking.

He has something of the convert about him.

And yet, those who have met him often say that he charms them. Certainly, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been.

Tony Blair admired in George W Bush far more than a firm handgrip and a look straight in the eye.

He saw in him a soulmate who was ready to change the world. The British prime minister had already demonstrated over Kosovo in 1999 that he was quite prepared to use ground troops.

The American President, Bill Clinton, was taken aback.

George W Bush was not. He and Tony set out to put the world to rights.

Whether they will become a version of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza is for the history books and the cartoonists.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3355319.stm

nt

Much of the world does.

Galloway's not giving a "black eye to liberals." He's not a liberal, he's a socialist. It's still not a dirty word where I'm from, and I'm proud to call myself one.

And p.s.: he's right.

in the back) to liberals everywhere.

George said he could understand some people thinking it was justifiable to assassinate blair but that he would not support them at all.

Tony Blair tried his hardest to go to war, lying and spinning the media and ignoring or pressuring for advice to be changed - leaving thousands dead by his command and a country in civil war.

Who is the embarrassment again?

The problem with george is he is too honest and the media will love to take what he says out of context while forgetting the atrocities committed by the Prime Minister.

I do not condone violence. But there are times when the meaning of words change. When stealing becomes surviving. We do not have the benefit of media here. We do not even know what these people have been through before we ever invaded. The 3000 Afghan soldiers who were forced into shipping containers and then fried to death in the desert heat. The innocent children in Iraq who's parents found them riddled with holes from our bombs. At some point, people do not follow the laws of civil society.

Last week I saw a documentary of a photographer that snuck into Afghanistan to witness our Marines going door to door, like criminals. Kicking people's houses around, and being totally belligerent. That one little thing alone is enough to display our arrogance in this situation. Combine that with the disruption of bombing, and the loss of life, and the continuation of an already splintered part of the world that can never heal, and you have people ready to defend themselves. I would call it revenge. Maybe righteous revenge. Maybe wrong. But who could blame them? Anyone but the few, who I might even call fools under these circumstances, would do the same. A god damned dog would do the same. Even an animal knows revenge, when pushed far enough.

I think Galloway speaks a truth people do not like hearing. But it's a truth. We can do better. We can break the cycle. But I don't know of a being that can take what they have taken. Bush and Blair asked for this. We marched to avoid it. But they wanted to bring it on. They brought it on themselves. And us. Damn them. They deserve what's coming to them, whatever it may be. This is the reality we all didn't want.

and I mean that in a bad way. I started to think he was a bit crazy before any other lefties and I haven't changed my opinion, that's for sure.

Murder is not justifiable, and by saying that it is, you are calling for it.

Idiot. Take your fatwah and go home.

That's what I love about the British - they don't fuck around with words. I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Pound; killing may be sanctioned by the State, but murder is NEVER justified. Period.

nm

What...

...the...

...hell?

This guy isn't in jail?

I'm not saying he should be, I'm just saying...in the US...you would never hear from him again.

Ah, the parliamentary system.

Here's the actual question: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

It would be morally justified in the the suicide bomber's mind, and that's really all that matters. If Osama were killed under the same cirsumstances, however, that would be morally justified, too. In other words, moral justification is in the actions of the beholder. It was a silly question.

:headbang:
rocknation

several people on this board don't really disagree with Galloway but wish, for purely pragmatic political reasons, that he would not speak his mind in public on this subject. That he should NOT reveal, that he should effectively dissemble, his genuine thoughts to his own constituents. Truth be damned. Talk about Machiavellian cynicism and hypocricy. His constituents have the right to know what their elected representative actually thinks on serious political subjects whether or not it is well received. Fuck cynical pragmatism. Stay genuine, George! Thats why people like you in the first place.

If your nation is under attack by another nation, is it justified to attack the leaders of that other nation in response?

Simple questions. The answers are easy when the leader is 'hitler' or 'the taliban'. Somehow those same answers are difficult when we are asked to abstract the situation, to role play, to view the situation from the perspective of, for an example, an Iraqi who has watched his nation suffer FOR NO GOOD REASON from three years of brutal occupation at the direction of Bush and Blair.

I find killing in general unjustified, but I allow for self defense as an ethical choice. The issue here really is 'what are the parameters of self defense?' For Bush and Blair Afghanistan and Iraq were justified as acts of self defense. We may disagree. For the hypothetical suicide bomb attacker that kills only Mr. Blair, he would certainly view his act as one of self defense, and in my opinion he might have a better case than Misters Bush and Blair. Once again I would disagree, but I can certainly understand the thought process and would not consider it irrational.

about Palestinian terrorists:

Galloway responds to Blair ‘assassination’ row

26/05/2006

“Like the Prime Minister’s wife commenting on suicide bombings in Israel I understand why such desperate acts take place and why those involved might believe such actions are morally justifiable.

"From the point of view of someone who has seen their country invaded and their family blown apart it’s possible, of course, for them to construct a moral justification. But I’ve made my position clear. I would not support anyone seeking to assassinate the Prime Minister. That’s why I said in the interview I would report to the authorities any such plot that I knew of."

“What I did make abundantly clear to Piers Morgan in the GQ interview is that I would like to see Tony Blair in front of a war crimes tribunal for sending this country to war illegally and for the appalling human consequences which resulted. That’s what I will continue to press for”.

George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow

http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1086

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/2052948.stm

Cherie said she understand why desperation drove people to become suicide bombers, and later expressed regret that she had made the reamrk.

Galloway said that he thought such actions were morally justified and has not expressed any form of regret.

How are those two positions the same?

We wouldn't have killed more than 3,000 innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan as payment for 9-11 under the old biblical construct, instead we have killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq alone according to the Lancet Report.

How wonder how many of you would find it morally reprehensible that some Germans decided that it was moral to kill Adolf Hitler?

for absolutely no reason, there wouldn't be any debate.