FLASH: Galloway And Blair Assassination



Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
George Galloway has gone one further than apearing on Big Brother. He's now been reported as stating a suicide bombing attack on Tony Blair would be "morally justified". This time he seems to have caused outrage in Labour Party circles and in the media, although Galloway did add he wouldn't personally condone such action. Here is the report:

"George Galloway has said the assassination of Tony Blair would be "morally justified" given his support for the war in Iraq.
The anti-war Respect MP said a suicide bomb attack on the Prime Minister would be "morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did".
The controversial left-winger added that he was not calling for such an attack and that he would tip off the authorities if he knew of one. But his remarks provoked a furious response, with one Labour MP calling him "disgraceful" and "twisted".
In an interview with GQ magazine, Mr Galloway was asked whether the assassination of Mr Blair by a suicide bomber would be justified, if there were no other casualties.
He replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened I believe 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."
Asked by interviewer Piers Morgan, a former editor of the Daily Mirror, whether he would alert the authorities to an attempt on the Prime Minister's life, Mr Galloway said he would.
He added: "Such an operation would be counter-productive because it would just generate a new wave of anti-Arab sentiment whipped up by the press. It would lead to new draconian anti-terror laws, and would probably strengthen the resolve of the British and American services in Iraq rather than weaken it. So, yes, I would inform the authorities."
Mr Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London since he ousted sitting Labour MP Oona King in last year's general election on a strongly anti-war ticket, said he would rather see the Prime Minister brought to trial for war crimes.
He said: "The people who prosecuted an illegal, murderous war on Iraq could hardly complain if someone sought to strike them back. My problem would be that it's very likely that innocent civilians would die if such an attack was mounted.
"I would much prefer to see those who prosecuted the war brought to trial at the Hague and charged with war crimes."
 

Wurm

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
2,202
0
0
Galloway is just stating outright what many feel personally about Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. I give him credit for having the cojones to say it publicly.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
He may well have gone too far since, if you study what he says carefully, the reasons George gives for informing the authorities of such a plot are founded on the idea there could be a security backlash. Seems to me like he's saying something like, "I'd inform the authorities because there might be draconian anti-terror laws forthcoming."
What he doesn't say is whether he'd inform the authorities if he knew there wouldn't be any draconian anti-terror laws in response." :confused:

"Such an operation would be counter-productive because it would just generate a new wave of anti-Arab sentiment whipped up by the press. It would lead to new draconian anti-terror laws, and would probably strengthen the resolve of the British and American services in Iraq rather than weaken it. So, yes, I would inform the authorities."
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
I agree Blair has been the biggest disaster for politics in this country we've probably ever seen. However, I think George has been unwise, given his position as an M.P.
I'll be glad to see Blair go but via the normal democratic process.
Still, so much extremism around lately. First you have Madonna making crude gestures at Bush Junior's image in a concert and now Galloway.
What's up with doing what Muhammad Ali did and using due political processes to change the system. After all, Ali never made any extreme statements with regard to Hoover.

Wurm said:
Galloway is just stating outright what many feel personally about Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. I give him credit for having the cojones to say it publicly.
 

wolfix

New Member
Mar 11, 2005
2,756
0
0
Wurm said:
Galloway is just stating outright what many feel personally about Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. I give him credit for having the cojones to say it publicly.
You are a sick individual.
 

cheapie

New Member
Aug 16, 2004
847
0
0
Wurm said:
Galloway is just stating outright what many feel personally about Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. I give him credit for having the cojones to say it publicly.
yeah. it takes balls to publicly condone the murder of the leader of a nation. :rolleyes:
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
He seems to stop a bit short of condoning assassination. He's trying to reason that Blair knowingly condoned the invasion of Iraq, knowing thousands of Iraqis and also U.S. marines might die. He's saying this is calculated murder in the same sense as a suicide bombing is also calculated murder.
He's trying to convey the idea he'd report any threat he knew of as a normal citizen would but that he could understand the motivation for violence e.t.c.
Clearly he's not condoning suicide bombings, although he's pushing boundaries quite high. Legally he's quite safe.
Still for an M.P. this kind of statement isn't wise and doesn't help matters.


cheapie said:
yeah. it takes balls to publicly condone the murder of the leader of a nation. :rolleyes:
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
Carrera said:
He seems to stop a bit short of condoning assassination. He's trying to reason that Blair knowingly condoned the invasion of Iraq, knowing thousands of Iraqis and also U.S. marines might die. He's saying this is calculated murder in the same sense as a suicide bombing is also calculated murder.

He didn't half phrase it badly. But then again maybe he's just too desperate for media attention to rip Blair to shreds more comprehensively. You could make Tony look like a raving blood letter quite easily without resorting to dubious moral relativism.

Thank god I'm not George Galloway.
 

11ring

New Member
Apr 22, 2006
397
1
0
41
How is he sick.

If it was true (which i don't think it is) that killing blair may help save thousands of lives in britian and the middle east then the only morally defensible stand would be to kill him. and quick.

Point is though, as trotsky argued, terrorism is just reformism with a bomb. Voting tony out to put another unacountable ******** in is not much different than blowing him to bits and having some ******** step in to take his place.

Fundamentally changing the sytem and stopping war requires much more than changing heads, and mass action is the only way to do it.

To be blunt- mass violence is a much more democratic and useful strategy for change than individual violence.


wolfix said:
You are a sick individual.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
54
"To be blunt- mass violence is a much more democratic and useful strategy for change than individual violence. "

Seems like history is repeating itself continually. When you hear of Cherie Blair spending thousands of pounds to have her hair done for Party conferences and now John Prescott (the working class hero) playing croquet in his luxury home (while thousands of nurses lose their jobs), it brings back memories of Russia under the Tsars (just before the Bolshevik revolution).
Mind you, Russia didn't have the safety valve of an election to get rid of Tsar Nicholas II.
New Labour will probably suffer a devastating election defeat, similar to what happened to the Tories. In fact, they may never get in power again for many years.



11ring said:
How is he sick.

If it was true (which i don't think it is) that killing blair may help save thousands of lives in britian and the middle east then the only morally defensible stand would be to kill him. and quick.

Point is though, as trotsky argued, terrorism is just reformism with a bomb. Voting tony out to put another unacountable ******** in is not much different than blowing him to bits and having some ******** step in to take his place.

Fundamentally changing the sytem and stopping war requires much more than changing heads, and mass action is the only way to do it.

To be blunt- mass violence is a much more democratic and useful strategy for change than individual violence.
 

11ring

New Member
Apr 22, 2006
397
1
0
41
They did actually, in away. That is what the provisional government represented. It did nothing to represent the people though (continued the war, opposed land reform) so got swept away just like the Tzar.



Mind you, Russia didn't have the safety valve of an election to get rid of Tsar Nicholas II.