Galloway says murder of Blair would be 'justified'

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

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". He said: "These comments take my breath away. Every time you think he can't sink any lower he goes and stuns you again. It's reprehensible to say it would be justified for a suicide bomber to assassinate anyone." The Stop the War Coalition criticised Mr Galloway: "We don't agree with Tony Blair's actions, but neither do we agree with suicide bombers or assassinations."

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. Mr Pound said at the time: "I thought George had sunk to the depths of sickness in the past but this exceeds anything he has done before." The Armed Forces minister, Adam Ingram, accused the Respect MP of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood".

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.

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".


more......

.."disowned him" a long bloody time ago.

Just ignorant now and then.

Interesting, incomprehensible, but still interesting. Please share why?

He has got the whole insane fake war scam figured out. He knows they lied. He appeared in LA at night and the very next day he was in DC at a rally speaking the truth about how they scammed everyone into this war in Iraq....

His anti-war stance absolves him of any requirement to be a decent human being? That's disgusting.

absolve him of any other indiscretions. Where'd you get that?

You're suggesting that every person who opposed the war with Iraq was decent? That's casting a pretty wide net.

and exposing how the whole world was "W"ronged is the decent thing that Galloway has done, and for that I admired him immensely.

Yes. Let's forget the actions of all of the compassionate human beings who stood up against the war, and instead celebrate the words of an abusive egomaniac, because we happen to agree with the sentiment. I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with that.

(head of the British National Party). I can't admire a man who in a debate with Richard Perle continues to say "where are the sheckels?" He befriends brutal assholes like Bashar Assad, Saddam Hussein, and apparently feels that killing a foreign leader is justifiable. Tell me, how would you feel if someone said they admired Pat Robertson for what he said about assassinating Hugo Chavez?

He says and does some pertty outrageous stuff. Maybe it's just to garner attention or perhaps to bring about dialogue to what he's talking about.

(It's a little like the Beatles declaring, "God is dead", farmers dumping hundreds of gallons of milk in symbolic protest, or even throwing a pie in the face of Ann Coulter. --It might not make sense at first blush -except for Coulter- but it gets people aware of the topic.)

But he sure can speak truth to power. The Dem leadership could use a few like him.

Just like Feingold, Kennedy, and Carter" Help me out, is there anyone else? I mean absolute, true individuals who speak from their heart, what is true and just?

It's just that Galloway is just so articulate and dynamic when he speaks, that the message is clear to those that have been brainwashed by RW lies and talking points.

Did they speak it in unison? Did they sing it? Did they do it at a press conference?

I think not.

John Lennon said the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus". In a debatable kinda way, he was right. Not more POPULAR than Jesus, but more widely heard of. Later, he would describe it that way. He never meant to say that his band was more popular than Jesus. He meant to say that more people had heard of the Beatles than had heard of Jesus.

Please. Get your facts right. It's not "a little like the Beatles declaring, "God is Dead," because they never did that.

John, Paul, George, Ringo, and all the other good people involved in the Beatles' rise to fame would have opposed this war. If you're going to quote them though, please be accurate.

And, if you wanna read a story more interesting than most, read "The Love You Make". I've read four or five bio's of the Beatles, and it was by far the best.

That said, John Galloway can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Some people make us progressives look good, and some make us look bad. In my book, he definitely falls into the category of the latter, rather than the former.

Then you must have saved even more lives than he did, which likely numbers in the thousands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam_Appeal

These facts are conveniently shoved aside by the press in order to report more urgent things like Galloway saying something stupid.

BTW, it's George Galloway. (Please. Get your facts right.) :eyes:

I was dead tired when I wrote that, no excuse, but that was why I goofed up. It was Nietzsche that gets the credit for saying "God is dead" first.

You are right, it was the Lennon quote about being more popular than Jesus that raised so much uproar.

And that said, I don't think we always have to agree with everything someone does or says to appreciate what they do in areas that we do agree with. This business on DU (and in the larger "progressive" community) of running down people who basically are on our side because they don't march in lockstep with every one of our positions is self-destructive.

(Just look at some of the crap written here about Hillary Clinton, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, or Ed Schultz - to name a few.)

Nietzsche

Then Strauss

And (whoa) Kubrick

Goodgod a'mighty, George.

Gone forever, no charges, no lawyer, no chance in Hell.

Regardless of who is perpetrating it, murder cannot be morally justified. It is not possible to determine that a murder is "justified" before the fact. Premeditated murder is not justified. I just can't say this clearly enough. Galloway is way, way out of line. He has gone much to far -- as have Blair and Bush in claiming that their murder of innocent Iraqis is justified. Galloway is just putting himself on the same low sub-human level as Blair and Bush with these horrible statements.

who pass the death sentence cannot be morally justified.

Also any military action on any grounds whatsoever cannot be justified.

Either live by the prinicple by "You shall not kill" or accept that some form of killing may be justiied.

Do not sit on the fence.

I would never sit on a jury to consider a death penalty. I am not God, and I know it. As for Hitler -- he, too, deserved a judge and jury.

what if you were around when Hitler was reigning and you had a chance to take him out, what would you do???

...but he's right that a suicide attack on Blair would be morally equivalent to the mass murder Bush and Blair have committed against Iraq.

and how I would regard the U.S. if they were raping my country.

If I had the chance to assasinate a murderous leader of a country would I pass it up?

the alleged comment?

I can't find a direct link to the alleged article on the Times site or the GQ site. I think it is important to read the entire peice rather than some guy's interpretation of an article. It's just gullible to read a pundit's article and make up your mind about someone based on that.

see and remember a time when the US was respected. Clinton being welcomed with cheering crowds in India, Carter seeking to help the impoverished in Africa.

I started a thread a month ago about my idea for a campaign ad. - Flashing pictures of times gone by - dem and rep - showing clips of US leaders visiting abroad -- thousands gathered, happy, cheering. Juxtiposed with clips of the horror of today - the flags burning in effigy = the "Go Home Bush" signs, etc. And then - just simply - "Remember when the world respected us? Make a change back, Vote Democratic."

would just make things worse, as killing does.

Why not send it to Howard for ads coming up before November?

They still own the voting machines, but we can make people THINK a lot more and question if their votes are stolen. More people are waking up.

fsc

Moral justification for terrorism? Killing Tony Blair? No. No no no no no no. :wtf:

If you disagree with Blair, then vote him out of office. I guess you could call for a duel but I doubt he'll agree to one. An act of terror, however, is like shooting a person in the back. There is no honor when killing someone by element of suprise...whether it be by terror or bombs dropping from tens of miles above your head.

Of course Iraqis would be justified in killing both Blair and Bush if that would stop their country being raped. Think of all the lives that would be saved that way, both American and Iraqi. The only problem I have with the idea is that both Blair and Bush are just stupid figureheads who would be replaced by equally murderous warmongers.

But if one could get them all ....

If anything like that happened to Bush or Blair, there would be no more Iraq. The hate crimes in the States would increase 10 fold, religious fanaticism would run rampant and the UN would be completely sidelined.

That you have time to go party with Castro on the public purse instead of showing up and voting against his agenda :eyes:

:thumbsdown:

now he's just wanting attention-whether it's degrading himself on british reality shows or making over-the-top remarks like this

he's an ass and the perfect straw man for the rw to use to smear the antiwar movement

very disheartening

Not EVER....

I saw him live - he rocks the house with truth.
While the members of Congress cower and shit their pants,
Galloway lays down the truth.
Read his work before going off half cocked.
Galloway rules.

I think he rocks and I wish there were more "egos" out there trying to "draw attention to themselves." Galloway is pissed and so am I.

Awesome.....:eyes:

By the way, the economy is really good right now, Bush must be an AWESOME president!

If he spoke eloquently about his noble motives would that change anything?

Would the murder of Saddam Hussein by survivors in a village he had "punished" be justified?

Would the murder of a head of state by an invading army (as the US attempted in Iraq) be justified if the invader wanted to make the invasion less costly?

Would the murder of someone who had just killed a member of your family and was aiming at another be justified? Even if he had a "good reason"?

"Justified" is a tricky concept -- tends to be subjective, as Galloway observed.

I don't put much stock in it. I searched "Galloway" on the site and turned up lots of "juicy" stuff but I couldn't find the article Duff referenced. The Times was negligent in offering a link to the original article also. Could it be that the comment was cherry picked and taken out of context? Perhaps Mr. Galloway meant to say that if Blair became victim to a terrorist attack would it be a big loss or would it be poetic justice?

I did find this and look forward to Galloway coming to MN to help us get rid of Norm Coleman:
http://www.gqmagazine.co.uk/Daily_News/default.aspx?search=Galloway&x=1&y=1:)

GALLOWAY'S REVENGE: George Galloway yesterday vowed to get revenge on the American senator who attempted to frame him for benefiting from Saddam Hussein's regime. The MP said he plans to travel to Minnesota to campaign against Norm Coleman's re-election in November. "I will be there helping the campaign to get him booted out," he declared.

the natural order of the universe. Personally, I don't think his comments need any further context. He merely thought -- one life -- opposed to 2400+ who were victims of a war that was unecessary and arbitrary. and he definitely wasn't condoning or calling for it - just saying, if it happened it would be poetic justice.

Aside: Surely, this post will get me on the "listen" list, if nothing else.....

and set up a pac for progressive candidates. It's pretty clear he is planning to take that seat back in 08. That is one fight I will relish!

I believe we have been watched for a couple years now and it is going to get much much worse. It is too late to start mincing words now.

but, I can't believe you really believe this stuff. I really hope not.
I wish you could consider or imagine really what you are talking about.

an idiot. And you see Bush looking at him like, "wow", he talks so pretty."

Sometimes I wish there was such a thing as "Stupid Jail"

From what I can tell by surfing the news about it, it was the usual political lies and bullshit, essentially an attempt to stall withdrawal from Iraq by feeding the media staged remorse and the old "stay the course" line; like continuing a stupid, bungled war is the only responsible thing to do.

Terrorism is terrorism. These sophmoric arguments about killing
Adolf Hitler if you could are fun mental experiments. But I still
can't get to the point (or near it) that Bush and Blair are evil
vile monsters anywhere near Hitler.

I think such talk equating these men with Hitler or Pol Pot
discredits DU.

For me, I abhor war. I further ABHOR that killing of innocent civilians
has become 'acceptable' as collateral damage. It is a sick and sad
fact that this concept of war becoming acceptable began in WW2 and
as best I can tell the blood is on the Allies hands equal to or greater
than Hitler. (please note, I am talking on the specific concept of
waging war on civilian populations...NOT programs of extermination
which is only on the hands of the insane tyrants)

Murder is murder.

I am 100% anti-war and anti-death penalty. However, I am pro-choice. This, I assume, to many is hypocritical. Also, I am sympathic to the idea that if someone is causing the death of many innocents, then they need to be stopped.

I don't think abortion is very much related to what we are talking
about. For the record, I think the issue of abortion is one that
should be resolved by the woman, her doctor and her relationship with
God. It's nobody else's business.

relevance. If you believe a human life begins at conception - then it is a living being. So, given that assumption, when is it ok to take a human life? In abortion? In war? In self-defense?

Many say that pro-choice anti=death penalty people (I am one) are hypocritical.

Many say that anti=abortion, pro-war people are hypocritical.

Although I am one of the former, I agree, it probably is hypocritical.

and I have never heard anyone convincingly identify when life
begins.

That's why I said what I did. It's the woman's business.
Her doctor and her beliefs are what count. And I disagree with
the government intervening in that decision.

I am more disturbed that you would somehow endorse murdering
Blair. I don't have any question that he is a human life.

I never condoned anything. I also. have no secret knowledge about when life begins.

However, many think a fetus is a life. If you do, then it is inconsistent to be pro-choice AND anti death penalty. I totally agree - even though I fall into this category.

Conversely, the opposing side thinks the exact opposite, equally as hypocritcal.

be exempt from all its ill effects?

Bush 'n Blair have never been shot at or seen someone die in a war that they started against innocent people. It is outrageous to think that they are not killers who planned these wars and Bush, at least, has profited from them. If that isn't evil and vile, what is?

One murderous, lying warmonger is much like another, really.

between him and Bush was so stark. Blair struck me as someone who albeit lacking in intellegence, honestly thought the whole Iraqi deal was a noble cause. In contrast, Junior, equally as dumb, had not even thought about why he caused the turmoil he did....

That means Tony bullshits himself too, a not uncommon trait. Hitler's conclusion at the end of it all was that the German people were not worthy of him. Tony, in the end, will blame someone elses lack of vision too. Bush, of course, doesn't think at all, so it never comes up.

That being true, what do you see as the significant differences between killing, for example, 100 Iraqi citizens and 100 Cambodians? Or 100 of Hitler's victims? Martin Luther King, Jr. drew parallels between American actions in Vietnam and the actions of Nazi Germany; did that discredit King, in your opinion? Does my mentioning that King drew these parallels discredit DU?

"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?"

The politic thing to do would have been to say "No, assassinations of heads of state can never justified as revenge for anything."

When is murder justified?

What are the rules in war?

These are interesting questions, ones which most politicians would rather duck than answer with any bluntness about how things are justified, either in murder, or in war.

I just did a google search and could only find the article above and three other articles based on the article above.

I couldn't possibly justify such comments if Mr. Galloway actually said this in the context implied in this article. But I'm just a bit skeptical.

A lie can get half-way around the world before truth can get its boots on.

when it isn't a quarter million of your people murdered, your country occupied and its wealth stripped, and when those who schemed the bullshit war and excuse every atrocity deem themselves above the law.

Bush press conference. There they were, acting holier than thou. All I could think was YOU TWO are directly responsible for the murder of 100k Iraqi people (haven't seen the 250k estimate that you refer to)! There you are, acting like you are innocent and have a noble cause. The two of you idiot criminals are no better than Saddam....

U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq

New studies make the Bush administration's "liberation" argument for a 'pre-emptive' war against Iraq seem questionable.

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians (not including certain of Iraq), reveals a compilitation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, documents a well-researched study, that had been released by The Lancet Medical Journal.

...

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm

it is so much less important than Britney having her baby backwards in the car seat, dont cha think?

He's like Cindy Sheehan now: a mockery of the very causes he claims to support.

Christopher Hitchens is right. Galloway is a joke. No self-respecting American liberal should pay him any heed. Getting chummy with folks like this does nothing to further the goals of the anti-war movement, nor the anti-Bush movement. It simply convinces a lot of centrists that "those liberals" are a bunch of crackpots.

Honestly, I have had enough. The man is a buffoon.

Why do you say so? Anything to back it up, or is the fact that "you've had enough" supposed to clinch it? :crazy:

Christopher Hitchens covered it:

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=778

http://www.slate.com/id/2128742/

There is absolutely NO link between Galloway and Oil For Food. Trumped up by the State Dept. to discredit him. Watch him testify before a Senate subcommittee, or read his testimony. Ask yourself why the investigation was DROPPED after Galloway not only refuted every charge but used the hearing as a soapbox to call the administration out on their war crimes:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8866.htm

Then read about how Galloway can take credit for selflessly saving thousands of lives in Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam_Appeal

He met with Saddam several times to get food to Iraqi kids during sanctions (which killed half a million of them) in the 90's. He's a loose cannon who says things he shouldn't in anger, and the administration has used them successfully to demonize him. Your post is proof that it works.

As if I'm going to believe anything from the besotted, slurring gob of Christopher Hitchens.

As a "self-respecting American Liberal", I disagree.

I find your post to be ill-informed,
and strangely in synch with RW propaganda spewers everywhere.

Those who continually cry, "Won't somebody think of the CENTRISTS!"
have had their way with the Democratic party for over a decade;
the results have been an unprecedented disaster for our beliefs,
and our goals; our Nation and even World have suffered.

As a "self-respecting American Liberal", I am tired of
people who keep telling me I need to act or think differently
in order to appease the 'Centrists'.

Such people are a joke.
No self-respecting American liberal should pay them any heed.
Getting chummy with folks like this does nothing to further the goals of the anti-war movement,
nor the anti-Bush movement.
It simply convinces a lot of centrists that "those liberals"
are a bunch of of flip-flopping wafflers with no real beliefs.

Honestly, I have had enough.
The Centrist-Appeasers are buffoons.

around these parts.

Masters of War

Amazing to think it's 43 years old. If it came out today I wonder how many liberals would wring their hands that he was going too far.

... he's wrong that the suicide bomber would be "morally justified, but he's right that a suicide attack on Blair would be morally equivalent to the mass murder Bush and Blair have committed against Iraq.

The mainstream media in the UK and the US will automatically feign shock and condemn him for "calling for the PM's assassination" .

Personally, though, I appreciate that there are loose cannons out there to say what even I would be afraid to say here for fear of gov't retaliation.

By the same token, I fully understand the feelings of DUers who would say that saying such things is counterproductive to our side. After all, if you want to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.

Besides Galloway has gotten into some every inexplicable antics lately. I really don't know what to make of it.

It was some sort of weird stunt he did with "Dead or Alive's" Pet Burns. He's raised eyebrows over there several times by doing weird things on TV there. I have no idea why.

I thought very highly of him, but he's making it more and more difficult...

The reason that he gave was that he wanted to reach out to younger voters here in the UK by appearing on a TV show aimed at young people. He believed that being shown on TV 24 hours a day for a few weeks would give him a great platform to put forward his beliefs.

Unfortunately for him, and something he would have been aware of, there are some pretty stringent rules here about politics on TV. Equal time has to be given to each party. So whilst he was giving his little speeches to the other house mates (and the TV cameras) the directors were using the 15 second broadcast delay to mute the sound.

His decision to go on Big Brother back fired badly. Since his speeches were edited out, his stated aim to put his beliefs to a wider audience failed since no one actually heard what he had to say. The young people he wanted to reach out to saw him pretending to be a cat and dressing up in skin-tight lycra and largely developed an attitude that he's a bit of a prick who will do anything for publicity.

Meanwhile, whilst he was in the house he was earning about £60,000 for his appearance on Big Brother. More importantly for many people, during his stay in the house he failed to do the job he was elected to do - he failed to attend over 20 Commons votes on various issues and failed to serve his constituents by being unavailable to them during his stay.

George Galloway supporters should take note of his Commons voting record. He attends so few votes that he's ranked 633rd out of 644 MPs. He's a great self publicist but he's a shit MP and he'll lose that job at the next election.

No way. He's consistently spoken truth to power. We never, ever give our own the benefit of the doubt.

He'll never achieve anything for the causes he supports, and indeed he damages them by association with them, but he gets to look and feel good while doing so and that's what matters to him.

And I would be very interested to hear which other world leaders he doesn't and doesn't think the assassination of would be justified - I'll bet it doesn't correlate strongly with whether or not they have a democratic mandate.

His gestures have done more good in the world than you or I will ever do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariam_Appeal

Suggestion: look beyond a few stupid things he's said and the picture that the administration has painted of him.

I'm English, so I've had to put up with him a lot; when you look beyond a few stupid things he's said you find more stupid things he's said.

very interesting when this hits the newsstands.

So far, you could hear a pin drop.

But what Mr. Metcalf had to say is far more extreme than what Galloway said, which is what made me think of it.

"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword"

but because galloway said it -- it's a flame fest.