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: News, Politics, George Galloway
7 comments:
He was asked a question, you cretin. How was he supposed to answer it? Was he meant to lie? That's Bliar's territory.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Post a Comment