Friday, May 26, 2006

The Ultra-Moonbat Strikes Again

Caution - swearing*.

The Litigious One says he is anti-war but pro-killing.
George Galloway has said the assassination of Tony Blair would be "morally justified" given his support for the war in Iraq.
The man is a fuckwit. Indefatigably irredeemable. An arse.

He says:
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.
Did you get that? Let's just look at it again.

The assasination of Blair is justifed, according to Galloway, because it is morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. In other words, he believes one action is morally justified because it is equivalent to another action which he believes to be morally reprehensible. Dear o fucking dear.

George Galloway, you are a fucking hypocrite. I'm sure I speak for the majority of people who opposed the invasion of Iraq when I say "shut your stupid indefatigable mouth, you odious egotistical fuckwit".

He doesn't represent my views. At all.

* Not feeling well today. Perhaps that explains my need to resort to profanities. Or perhaps its because GG is such an enormous fuckwit that there really is no other option. Anyway, this rant over, I'm going back to bed.)

Tags: , ,

10 comments:

Cherie said...

He was asked a question, you cretin. How was he supposed to answer it? Was he meant to lie? That's Bliar's territory.

CuriousHamster said...

I suppose I can't really complain about personal abuse in the comments when I've done it to GG in the post. I'm not really interested in trading insults (but do welcome opposing points of view).

Whether he told the truth isn't really the issue. The nub of it is that I, and I'm sure many other people who opposed the war, find what he said objectionable. I do not believe assasinating Blair can be "morally justified".

Galloway, for a self-styled leader of an anti-war movement, is far too keen to justify violence. He's almost a mirror image of the neo-con warwongers.

. said...

Who cares if he was being honest when he was being so disengenuous? Galloway is far more intelligent than many give him credit for, and if anything, this was meant to stir the pot after his profile going down a little.

It's nothing even to do with the war. Arguing that it can be morally justifiable to kill someone, whatever they have done, especially coming from a supposed left-winger, is stupid, callous and morally wrong. It seems Galloway doesn't know what morals are.

Alethea said...

Look, Blair said that Britain had to be prepared to pay a blood price for its relationship with USA. What the hell does that mean? Did he mean the people who died on July 7th paid the price? And if not, what exactly did he mean? Can anybody explain it. And if people must be prepared to pay the blood price, whatever that means, why shouldn't Blair pay it? What's so special about him? If invading Iraq is worth dying for, according to Blair, then why isn't he prepared to die for it?

Jeremy said...

I think Blair should be killed for
1) causing the death of ten of thousands of innocent iraqis
2) LYING blatantly to the British public to get his own way
3) complete failure to accept responsibility for failure

Blair is in short a war criminal and Nuremberg would not have been kind to him.

Neohippy'84 said...

Blair's death would at least make more sense than the death of those unconnected with the decision, who may even have protested against it. In that sense, it's morally superior, though by no means 'right', and it seems as though that was the distinction he was trying to make.

Friendly Fire said...

Mute point, shouldn't Galloway be arrested by Blair's gvmt for inciting a terrorist act?

bryanc said...

Calm down - GG didn't call for the muder of TB (but for the reaction of the press you would think he had).

I can't even see that it is controversial to say that the murder of TB would be no worse than his crimes. I am against (almost) all violence and would not advocate the assassination of TB, but I can't see why his muder would be any more heinous that the murder of 100,00+ Iraqis

Kesara said...

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.

It is a retarted question to begin with. Why didnt they suggest a sniper's bullet instead? The chance of a self-combustible nutcase not causing collateral damage to someone like TB is just plain naive even if it is for the purposes of an example. At least chose a good one and if Galloway wanted to he should have corrected it.

This is the part that worries me:
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."

via the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5847258,00.html

So if there was to be no backlash and the effect on coalition forces was a demoralising one, George Galloway WOULDN'T tip off the authorities?
For someone so anti-war he isn't so anti-killing is he?
From what I've seen the press have been careful not to 'misconstrue' his remarks (surprise surprise) but in this case I can see how skewered his mentality is.

(Im not concerned about the morality of the issue - just trying to spot the jester in the court.)

Also what pisses me off is that some folks bang on about how the london bombers were spurred on by Iraq (which is partly TonyB's fault and thus he is a war criminal blah blah). The problem I have with this is an analytical shortsightedness that seems to be quite prevelant. Like our boom-boom martyrs(sp) are only thinking about IraqIraqIraq 24/7. Bosnia ring a bell? Chechnya? Tony wasnt in power at the time...
(Thank Goodness Melanie Phillips brought that issue up - it is often overlooked esp with regards to terrorist profiling).

Im surprised Galloway didnt call for attacks against every world leader who's ever pissed someone off (big time). Or perhaps Tony nicked his pen during a Commoner's session and this is personal babay.

Neil Craig said...

Blair is a war criminal 7 guilty of genocide in Kosovo. Since Nuremburg in 1948 it has been the British state's position that planning an aggressive war & targeting civilians are war crimes & participation in genocide & ethnic cleansing are crimes against humanity.

If this country had any respect for the rule of law Blair would be facingh trial for multiple murder.

Assassination would be very much a lesser option on the other hand we do know that it has been decided that it is lawful for our troops to kill unarmed people in Bosnia & subsequently declare them "war crimes suspects" so there is a legal precedent.