He went there on his own initiative yes - imagine that for a second. Would you or any politician you'd vote for do the same, or would they just toe the party line and be fucking useless? He was never an apologist for Saddam - he spoke for the Iraqi people while the Americans and British governments were shouting about the need to go to war and kill however many of those people as was necessary.
I take it you have a particular link to the Kurds rather than the Iraqis as a whole? Either that or you're just using them as an excuse for the bloodthirsty rampage into foreign territory from which there was no direct threat - and that would be stupid.
galloway obviously lied so that it wouldn't look like he admired saddam. I wonder if he had a similar excuse for his meeting with Uday?
also after saddam's death galloway said "saddam hussein will live in history long after these dogs (Bush and Blair) are forgotten". this indicates that he did in fact admire saddam. in Big brother he said that saddam wasn't hated by the iraqi people at all. that was also another lie.
Sir,
To speak on the specifically, I must admit: I do not believe Galloway was talking to the Iraqi people when he said what he said before he was speaking directly to Saddam. I think Galloway can claim this all he wants and look correct simply because it was not in writing. If it had been in writting, then we would have all really been able to gather what was said. However, it was not so we are in a fog about if he said it to Saddam, or his people. Your vs. You're. But this no even where your attention should be draw to. This arguement is moot either way.
So while you are running around in that maze, you either forget or are not prvvy to knowing HE WAS SENT BY HIS GOVERNMENT TO SPEAK AS HE DID AND CHARGED WITH GOALS TO COMPLETE! Picture this: The British government is sitting at their table, talking about what they need to accomplish in Iraq. They are listing things they need to do. And then they say "Well, but who do we send?" Now, who do you think they are going to send: Someone who has bad ties to Iraq and the middle east or someone with good ties and a well spoken trust man who would be the best for nearly any middle easten affair?
If I remember correctly George said those words while addressing a 99% Arab Muslim audience in Bahrain. To those people it is just a fact that the memory of Saddam Hussein will live on in history. Robert Mugabe will live on in the memory of Africans, but to state such a fact doesn't require an admiration of him.
so if George would adress a crowd of germans after WW2 and said such things about Hitler, that would be alright also?
what if he met Hitler during WW2 and said to him the things he said to Saddam and Uday, that would be fine?
Why is it when people don't have a decent argument they always invoke a comparison to Adolf Hitler?! There is nothing remotely similar between George having meetings with Saddam and your Hitler shtick.
Once more, with feeling: Out of all the hundreds of thousands of times George has said extremely specific things about Saddam that place his heart on his sleeve regarding the issue, you're choosing to focus on a handful of vague quotes that can be argued to mean something different if you use them out of context.
This whole debate can be boiled down to:
Several ambiguous pronouncements - vs. - Decades of clear, unashamed condemnation.
You, for whatever personal or partisan reason, might choose to believe the former weighs heavier, but you won't find many converts among the logical.
You've also brazenly stated that George called Gadafi a hero. Prove this or take it back. I don't believe it for a moment.
but Galloway wasn't sent by the british government. he came there by his own initiative.
Galloway was an apologist for Saddam's regime. from the moment that the West turned against Saddam after he used chemical wepaons on civilians, Galloway became a friend of that regime. the same thing happens with every single dictator that is against the west. take Lybia's leader for example. Galloway used to call him a hero (when he was a terrorist) but the moment that he became an ally of the west and abandoned terrorism, Galloway called him a traitor and a madman.
Can you show me where Galloway went on his own initiative to what you are speaking about specifically? Is that one time or everytime you are speaking about? And, do you think, that if he actually went by his own initiative, that was the stance the entire time, considering who he is? Furthermore, do you think his position was considered whatsoever and that he wasn't working in any capacity for the British goverment the entire time?
Can you show me one time Galloway apologized for the Saddam regime?
Do you think the west turned on Saddam because he used Chemical weapons? Have you seen China lately? And do you know America is still friends with Pakastan and Saudi Aribia? Do you know America tests out all of its civil rights breaking technology in China? Do you know anything about the three countries treatment of their people? Would you like videos? Why do you think we have not run in there and taken out their governments? Because their governments do not use....Or you do not think they use chemical weapons? I give you this:
Lets see if you can find my point.
Why do you tie Lybia's about-face stance toward the west and terriorism to your alleged feeling of Galloway's support if it?
Do you think I do not listen to George Galloway on arab TV stations or on the internet thereof?
Do you think Galloway is the only person who hates the west?
Sir, if your described interpretation of "whose side Galloway is" as "clear"......The I am afraid you are I must come to the conclusion that you do not even know what clarity is. But this is a good thing, you see. You have come to the right place. It is not just me that can provide clairity for you but many others way above myself who dwell here and who know and seek the truth. So please excuse the questions. It is what educated people do.
And ron, as far as I know, Galloway's trips to Iraq were entirely on his own initiative. This is the one of the reasons why he was edged out by the deadheads in New Labour.
And ron, as far as I know, Galloway's trips to Iraq were entirely on his own initiative. This is the one of the reasons why he was edged out by the deadheads in New Labour.
I simply do not believe that faceless. He is a person of the people. He communicates with people. He has a person who is appointed next to him who is in charge of managing communication to him, from the people. I mean, wtf? You think he just woke up one day and said, "Oh I think I will just go visit Saddam, give him a reach around, and see him naked. Oh ya, lets do it on video so everyone can see it or maybe I can tell everyone about it later too!" I mean, tell me where you think George can just do these things, being of his position, where he was not sent by atleast one other person to such a matter as what is ever talked about? The fucking Queen could have sent him for all we know and is more probable than just thinking he did it himself.
lol....Oh yes, had to add this: Galloway does not hate the west. I was only describing it from the stand point of the person I was quoting to outstand his incorrective use of the term on the subject.
Galloway has more than 30 years experience of speaking with Arab people from all over the Middle East and North Africa - maybe you don't realise that he is held in high regard in the region, and not just for trying to prevent the Iraq wars.
What you're suggesting is that he was, out of choice, involved in a conspiracy that would ultimately be his downfall? I think you've been at those conspiracy sites just a bit much... a visit from a British MP is treated as quite an important moment all over the world, which is why it was possible.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
