Posted on 05/31/2006 9:07:12 AM PDT by Mike Bates
In the current issue of British Gentleman's Quarterly, there appears an interview with somebody who could by no leap of the imagination be characterized as a gentleman. George Galloway is a man whose Catholic beliefs have not prevented him from expressing nostalgia for Stalinism and offering open support for the dictatorships of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad. Evidence that this support has not gone unrequited has been presented by two investigations into the prostitution of the U.N. oil-for-food racket, one of them conducted by Paul Volcker for the United Nations itself and another conducted by a U.S. Senate investigations subcommittee. Scotland Yard's Serious Fraud Office is currently reviewing these reports, and I would be the last to prejudge the outcome of their inquiries.
Galloway himself is not so averse to a rush to judgment. Asked by GQ if he would justify the suicide-murder of Tony Blair (with the tender GQ proviso that only the prime minister would be killed in this putative assassination) Galloway responded as follows:
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 people in Iraq as Blair did.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
If Western governments don't put down lunatics like this that reside within their borders it will surely fall apart. And yes, by put down, I mean kill.
"And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq as Blair did."
I would like to see that order.
George Galloway - bad kitty!
I wish all leftists felt comfortable saying exactly what they think, because they don't. That's why they're all so angry--because they long to just shout their true feelings of murder and hate. Interesting how they are always going on about "angry" white males, and are for banning handguns and such. They are overflowing with repressed anger. They know what they SHOULD say is not what they WANT to say, and that drives them crazy. Notice how so many libs have cooled the rhetoric about owning guns since 9-11--it's now OK for THEM to have guns, so it's one area where they can relax. (Notice that when the media try to show a lib is actually a centrist, it's usually their gun position that's softened?)
I hope Galloway returns to the front of the lefty pack, and encourages others of his kind to say exactly what they're really thinking. It can only benefit the conservative side.
Of course you won't mind if MANY of your countrymen feel the same justification of means regarding your sorry bloomin' arse...
Star seen what Galloway has said now, I meant to let you know yesterday or the day before when details of the GQ interview hit British TV.
I'm sure Galloway would feel differently if Tony Blair answered a similar question with Galloway as the target with the same sentiments.
It is entirely okay for liberals to talk about killing people on the side of liberty and justice, but if anybody should talk about killing them - it is proof that we're all a bunch of baby killing monsters.
That doesn't even address the single most important point in the anti-terror debate, and that is if you put a terrorist, armed, in a room with Tony Blair and George Galloway, the terrorist would kill both with equal glee. Whereas if you arm Tony Blair, he'll kill the terrorist and then free himself and Galloway. And if you arm Galloway, he'll give the gun to the terrorist, and the terrorist will then kill Blair and Galloway. There is only one scenario where freedom wins, and that is if someone, anybody, kills the terrorist first.
It's pretty odd that Galloway has such as soft spot for these jihadists, considering that the Islamists would kill godless socialists like him given the chance.
In a perfect world, we would one day wake up to all the cable networks announcing that we were about to see "shocking, SHOCKING video" from the radical al Qaeda splinter faction 'El Slicem n' Dicem', and upon settling down with our coffee or tea, a muffin, bagle or toast, we would be presented with footage of the (dis)honorable George Galloway, on his knees (a familiar position no doubt) reading tearfully from a script shoved in front of him in which he confesses to this or that crime or sin against Islam, he admits to everything from giving the apple to Eve to providing ammo for Lee Harvey Oswald, and after his babbling blather, the terrorists with which he made common cause would proceed to saw his head from his neck, just like they did the late Nick Berg in Iraq.
And I predict it would take only a few nanoseconds for someone to sigh, switch channels, and say "well George, I supposed it was morally justifiable now wasn't it?"
And I cannot think of a more deserving victim of the current insane Islamofascist jihad.
Thank you.
I have noticed the problem slacked off considerably since I mentioned it on my homepage. I will update there asap. Thank you again. :)
For too long we have allowed speech that in a sane society would be considered treason and/or sedition and grounds for prison or hanging
anti war/so called PEACE crowd
But my freely offered ill wish toward Galloway has a bit of a different character than Galloway's wish for Mr. Blair. GQ apparently invented this murderous scenario and offered it to Galloway for comment:
Asked by GQ if he would justify the suicide-murder of Tony Blair (with the tender GQ proviso that only the prime minister would be killed in this putative assassination)...
Hitchens’ phrase "with the tender proviso" seems -- justifiably in my mind -- to be taking time out for a quick sneer at the GQ questioner who put this idea on the table.
I remember hearing, in drive-by media, accounts of Galloway making this comment. But somehow I missed the fact that he was responding to a prompting. One always envisions, in outrageous public statements, that they were made Hitler-like: a ranting lunatic, mounting a podium and pouring his bile upon the world entirely of his own volition.
Galloway's response here is so loathsome that it is beyond mitigation. Still, it has a slightly different feel when one understands that the idea of murder was thought up by a reporter rather than by Galloway himself. It seems to me that the reporter deserves a little contempt for sharing with the world the fruits of his own fertile imagination.
(I am assuming here that Galloway had not previously included this particular suggestion in his stream of rhetorical excrement. That at least is the impression Hitchens leaves in his secondhand account.)
It was the catnip talking, I'm sure.
He's an absolute maniac, snugs .. a twisted and evil man who adores tyrants, criminals and despots. How does he survive?
Feel free to use it on any pertinent thread. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.