Canada bans George Galloway for ‘supporting’ terrorists

by

Comment at end

20th March, 2009

I have copied this article as it has been reported. No comment. OK – just this one – the ‘INFANDOUS’ GG. New word on me! Thanks, Canada.

CANADA BANS OUTSPOKEN BRITISH MP

OTTAWA — Immigration Minister Jason Kenney will not intervene in a decision to ban British anti-war MP George Galloway from Canada despite opposition claims of censorship.

Galloway termed the decision “idiotic” after Citizenship and Immigration Canada deemed the outspoken politician inadmissible on security grounds. He was exploring his legal options Friday, vowing to fight the ruling with “all means at my disposal.”

Kenney’s office noted Galloway has expressed sympathy for the Taliban cause in Afghanistan and provided financial support to the Palestinian group Hamas, listed in Canada as a terrorist organization.

Speaking in Calgary on Friday, Kenney said that while he has authority to overrule his officials, he will not provide special treatment to the 54-year-old Scottish MP.

Galloway “last week publicly called for a coup d’etat in Egypt and the overthrow of the government there while at the same time delivering aid and resources to Hamas, which is a banned illegal terrorist organization,” Kenney said.

“In this case, I believe folks that are supporting and promoting and helping terrorist organizations are not needed to visit Canada.”

Galloway was to speak Monday at a Toronto conference entitled Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar, hosted by the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, and at a public forum in nearby Mississauga the next day.

Galloway, banned from Britain’s Labour party in 2003 and now sitting as a left-wing Respect MP, issued a statement calling the decision “irrational, inexplicable and an affront to Canada’s good name.”

“This idiotic ban shames Canada,” he said. “This … is a very sad day for the Canada we have known and loved – a bastion of the freedoms that supporters of the occupation of Afghanistan claim to be defending.”

He said the ban “may be a rather desperate election ploy by a conservative government reaching the end of line, or by a minister who has not cottoned on to the fact that the George Bush era is over.

“All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me over the wisdom of sending troops to Afghanistan or not, will oppose this outrageous decision. On a personal note – for a Scotsman to be barred from Canada is like being told to stay away from the family home.

“This is not something I’m prepared to accept.”

It’s not the first time the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been linked to a controversial decision to bar entry to high-profile activists.

In October 2007, officials banned two U.S. peace activists from speaking at a Toronto conference – Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, and retired U.S. army colonel Ann Wright, who has been arrested at various peace rallies.

And a day before U.S. President Barack Obama’s inauguration, authorities barred Prof. Bill Ayers from attending a conference hosted by the University of Toronto.

Ayers, who teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is a former founding leader of the radical left Weather Underground, which was responsible for a series of bombings and three deaths in the 1970s.

Ayers was thrust into the limelight during last year’s presidential race when it was learned he had served on two non-profit boards with Obama and that the future president had attended a gathering at his home in 1995. The controversy eventually dissipated.

Harper’s government has also waged a long-running battle with Arab groups in Canada over their policies and statements on Israel. It recently ended a funding arrangement with the Canadian Arab Federation because of “objectionable statements” by its president and others.

In Winnipeg, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff suggested that, on the face of it, the decision does not appear justified. But he cautioned that security officials might know something he doesn’t.

“I have never in a long life of listening to George Galloway heard a single sentence out of his mouth that I believed,” said Ignatieff. “But that’s not the issue.

“We let into Canada all kinds of people who say ridiculous and absurd things and Galloway has said his share of ridiculous and absurd things. The issue … is whether the security services know something about George Galloway that I don’t.

“If he’s being barred on free-speech grounds, that’s an outrage. He can come to Canada and talk rubbish all day long, as far as I’m concerned. If there’s a security threat, that’s another matter. I’ve heard no evidence yet that he presents a security threat.”

NDP immigration critic Olivia Chow said the ban perpetuates a pattern in which views that contradict those of the Conservative government have been suppressed. She said the Tories have adopted an “unhealthy, isolationist, bunker mentality.”

“The minister of immigration is becoming the minister of censorship,” Chow said in an interview. “We don’t have to agree with everything Mr. Galloway talks about.

“But, at bare minimum, they should be allowed to express their points of view so Canadians can make decisions themselves. This is pure censorship and it’s wrong.”

The decision received rave reviews from two of the country’s most prominent Jewish organizations, B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress.

“We applaud the government for its explicit recognition that individuals who glorify terrorism, and promote hatred be denied access into Canada,” said a statement from B’nai Brith’s executive vice-president, Frank Dimant.

“By logical extension those who support the pro-terrorist agenda of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, whose avowed aim is the destruction of the Jewish state, should not be given public platforms to spew their vile messaging.”

He asked Ottawa to review its Anti-Terrorism Act and “close all legal loopholes that would allow for the open glorification of terrorism.”

Said congress CEO Bernie Farber: “George Galloway enables terrorism. In so doing he puts Canadian civilians at risk and comforts those who fight our soldiers in Afghanistan. The government’s decision was the right one from legal, security and moral viewpoints.”

Kenney’s spokesman, Alykhan Velshi, called the decision to bar Galloway a “matter of law” taken by border officials in accordance with Section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which bans those who provide material support for terrorist groups.

Velshi point out that American celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart was denied entry into Canada under the previous Liberal administration after she served jail time for insider stock trading.

Also reported here at Lambeth Walk

Canada ban: Galloway faces his accusers a Jewish Defence League (JDL) “Terrorist”

The accusation is that the Jewish Defence League has influenced TOO strongly the decision to ban Galloway from Canada. Galloway says it is an issue of Free Speech and that the present Canadian government will soon be out of office. Such a clever chappie, this GG, don’t you think?  He can see the future. So can we all Galloway. So can we all.

From the YouTube page: The decision to ban George Galloway from Canada seems odd, but now it emerges that the Jewish Defence League (JDL) pressured the Canadian Government to so the action takes on sinister connotations for Canada, why? Because the Jewish Defence League are according to the FBI a Terrorist Group. In its report, Terrorism 2000/2001, the FBI referred to the JDL as a “violent extremist Jewish organization”. This “violent extremist Jewish organization” now it seems has power and influence over the Canadian Government.




Free Hit Counter


Advertisements

Tags: , ,

26 Responses to “Canada bans George Galloway for ‘supporting’ terrorists”

  1. rockford Says:

    For a good overview of the state of free speech in Canada see Ulli Diemer’s “Free speech as long as it doesn’t offend anyone” at http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-FreeSpeech.htm

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Thanks rockford. Sensible article. I’ll paste a little below for my readers.

      I don’t in principle agree with censorship. Especially when in reality it isn’t practised right across the board here in Britain. I could bore you with the details. But our government seems to pander to Islam/Muslims in its desire NOT to offend anyone, by threatening to come down heavy on “hate speech” and continuously failing to do so. Anjem Choudary and his rantings are a case in point.

      And this targeted inaction V action was recently highlighted when they refused entry to Geert Wilders. Unlike Galloway, he hates no-one and only has dislike and distrust of a RELIGION and/or its Holy Book.

      So what? People have been lambasting the Bible and Chritianity forever and no-one is banned from entering another so-called civilised country because of that.

      Galloway really angered me with his “moral dilemma” over telling the authorities if he knew of an assassination plot against Tony Blair. He didn’t seem bothered if the then Prime Minister had been blown to smithereens! (In fact I’m sure he’d have LOVED that). But his moral dilemma was that if it were to happen there would be a general uprising amongst the civilised (my word, not his) and that would make things even worse for the Muslim community! No blame attached to THAT community for murder, of course!

      The man’s an idiot.

      Still, all in all, I have to be consistent and say that Galloway should be allowed to speak. And then, for inciting hate, or for breaking some other law – raising funds for Hamas, say – he should be arrested. Now if that were even likely to happen here I’d put him and Wilders on the same platform. I know which one they’d cuff afterwards.

      This present British government has started to extend its powers far too much for my liking by silencing Wilders. But we MUST understand – it does it because it’s SCARED! It’s TERRIFIED that the dull voters will realise how far we have slid down that slippery slope. For instance WE are the only EU country in all 27 who now have Sharia Law.

      The problem of hate speech

      There are those who would agree with much of what I have written above but who argue that ‘hate speech’ is a special case that does require censorship. Hate speech is a particularly troubling issue, and I don’t want to dismiss it lightly. Certainly clear threats of violence or incitements to violence should be treated as crimes. I also believe it is appropriate for institutions and organizations to implement their own individual policies against hate speech, e.g. for an organization to refuse to rent space to a speaker or group that promotes hatred, or for a website to refuse to post submissions promoting hatred. But that is different from laws against hate speech. These are almost invariably misused – for example, the current attempts to suppress criticism of Israeli apartheid as ‘hate speech.’ I think the reasons for denying the state the power to regulate speech greatly outweigh the arguments for wanting to hand the state that power.

      One also observes that laws against hate speech usually serve only to catch (and provide free publicity to) marginal cranks: the smart hatemongers know how to code their message in ways that don’t cross the line while still making the intent clear. The British National Party, for example, has taken to packaging its message in the fashionable language of identity politics: i.e., ‘every culture is unique and has a right to its own values and autonomous existence, and that includes white European values and white European culture.‘

      I think the answer to hate speech has to be political, i.e. exposing it, refuting it, and organizing politically against the hatemongers. The state is far too blunt and dangerous an instrument to be used to legislate our individual and collective responsibility to treat others with respect and decency. We can’t let hate speech serve as an excuse to expand the repressive powers of the state.

  2. Harriet Harman: “Tony Blair is better looking than Michael Sheen” « Tony Blair Says:

    […] Canada bans George Galloway for ’supporting’ terrorists […]

  3. Caela Says:

    Wow. Great. Looks like banning parliamentarians is the latest trend. /sarc

    That aside, I prefer not to come across as supportive of banning anyone but I can see where the Canadians are coming from here. I mean, with Wilders’ there not a single evidence that he’s ever called for violence but this man is consorting with Hamas, and last I checked, they’re still considered as terrorists by the Quartet and more importantly, in this case, by Canada. So, maybe, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada was right to ban him for genuine security concerns.

    I must admit that this blurs the line between a state’s responsibility to uphold the right to free speech and that of its responsibility to protect its people. And more than anything, a state’s loyalty is to its people. (Of course, they could just as well have allowed him to enter but then, they’ll have to arrest him. That maybe a real diplomatic problem — and the fact they’re Canada and Galloway’s from Britain make it even worse. So, I guess, there wasn’t really so much of a choice.)

    But of course, like KTBFPM, I firmly believe in free speech. ‘Hate speeches’ should be defeated and dismissed in open debate and discussion NOT by silencing them. By silencing them, you give them a justification for their cause, a reason to believe they are being oppressed, a desire to seek ‘justice’, whatever. It doesn’t bring about anything good in the long run.

    What isn’t nice about this whole affair is that it is very divisive. It creates a division that will not make room for discussion/debate and understanding. I imagine the ‘other side’ calling to ban Wilders’ if he ever tries to enter Canada. You see, this thing creates a vicious cycle in which the argument of both side will be “since they got someone from our side banned, we should also get someone from their side banned”. And the debate, discussion, reason and understanding would be lost along the way. (And history shows that this is enough to start a war.)

  4. keeptonyblairforpm Says:

    Yes, Caela, I agree it IS a fine line in some cases. Far finer in Galloway’s case than in Wilders, since the latter does NOT call for or support removing people by terrorist activity, and Galloway actually raises money to do this.

    Of course if we got our acts together and arrested and charged people within our own lands as soon as they started their nonsense, it would never get to this stage.

    The average voter would be right behind this. But of course, you know the problem makers? …

    … STIRRERS UNITED – the PRESS – that old chestnut. And of course the ‘Liberty’ Civil Rights Brigade.

    They’d all be up in arms as usual about clamping down on FREE SPEECH.

    What do you mean- “they didn’t over Wilders”.

    EXACTLY.

    Do you think there is a tiny chance that some of these idiots are coming to realise that THEY too are the “Enemy Within”?

    • Caela Says:

      I don’t think they would ever realize it. The worst enemies are those who truly believe that what they are doing is ‘right’ and ‘just’ because they will never give up and there will always be only two sides to them: their side and the ‘wrong side’.

      • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

        So, NO answer then, apart from continual war, of one sort or another.

        A counsel of despair? I expect that’s why Mr Blair is on his his ecumenical religion quest.

        • Caela Says:

          Sometimes I despair about this but then, it helps to remember that a large number of people don’t arrive at exactly the same conclusions. They often rally behind the beliefs of the leaders so there may still be hope after all. Not everyone is as convinced as their leaders. And given a good alternative, there are those who are willing to listen.

          And speaking of religion, have you seen Tony Blair’s recent article in the New Statesman? It was in the issue guest-edited by Alastair Campbell.

          • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

            I actually thing the majority are far more moderate than we think, probably everywhere. But two of the BIG problems in leadership are extremism and its opposite – acquiescence.

            Finding leaders who can make a moderate response assertive enough to inspire is the problem.

            I have seen parts of the TB New Statesman article. I haven’t read all of it – unavailable unless you subscribe, and I don’t.

  5. Pete Says:

    “for inciting hate, or for breaking some other law – raising funds for Hamas, say – he should be arrested.”

    Hamas won a clear majority of seats in the Palestinian election of January 2006, an election which was ratified as free and fair by UN observers.

    Can you explain to me please exactly which law is being broken by raising funds for a democratically-elected government?

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Hi Pete,

      The small matter of them being considered by many countries as a terrorist movement?

      Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada,[28] the European Union,[29][30][31] Israel,[32] Japan,[33] and the United States.[34] Although Australia[35] and the United Kingdom[36] list only the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The United States and the European Union have implemented restrictive measures against Hamas on an international level.[37][38]

      see here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

  6. Pete Says:

    er, you haven’t answered my question.

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      No, you’re right, I didn’t answer your question. I tend to assume readers here are sharp enough to put two and two together. Evidently this is not always the case. Apart from that I have been out for several hours.

      Anyway, where were we?

      Oh yes, your question:

      Can you explain to me please exactly which law is being broken by raising funds for a democratically-elected government?

      I am not au-fait with Canada’s laws and am not spending time digging through for you. You can do that for yourself. I believe it was something t do with raising funds for a terrorist organisation. This is frowned upon, (oddly!?) by Canada.

      Before I say anything else, let me repeat what I have said before: I believe in freedom of speech even for such traitors as Galloway. So I wouldn’t want to ban him. In the same way as it was wrong to ban Wilders from Britain, it would be wrong to ban Galloway, imho. We have to hear ALL sides before we can judge. They should have let Galloway in and then arrested and charged him under their laws, if he was breaking them. As Britain should have done with Wilders, if he was breaking any laws.

      So the answer to your question is – if you are interested in Galloway – personally I don’t give a damn about the rat – you go and argue which laws he isn’t breaking. And then argue that the laws he ISN’T breaking supersede Canada’s right to ban him. I am not Canadian or a natural ban-fan. And I have other things to get on with.

  7. Pete Says:

    I see, I’m going to assume then that you can’t.

    “Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada,[28] the European Union,[29][30][31] Israel,[32] Japan,[33] and the United States.[34]”

    By my reckoning that’s 31 countries – by no stretch of the English language does that constitute “many” countries. And one of them is Israel – you’ve got to be joking.

    The UN (I assume you’ve heard of them) adopted a formal position on this as recently as last december, they voted on “The right of the Palestinian people to self determination”. That voted was carried – I can even give you the count – by 173 in favour, 5 against. Ok, who voted against? Israel, the US and a few Pacific islands.

    You seem like a very confused person to me. The whole point of democracy is that you abide by its outcome, even when you don’t like it very much. If that’s true of a democratic decision in your own country, how much more true is it of an election in somebody else’s?

    Since when do you (or anyone else, for that matter) have the right to dictate to the people of Palestine who they can and cannot vote for?

    Huh? Since when?

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      And another one – how boring.

      It only matters in this case that CANADA thinks of Hamas as a terrorist organisation as it is Canada which has banned Hamas’s representative, Galloway. Tough to get your head round?

      The UN is proving about as useful as a holey umbrella. For instance, the other day their Human Rights body decided that no-one should criticise a religion, or rather ISLAM, because people’s feeling might be hurt! AWWWW. So upsetting!

      Read it here.

      Attacks against insulting Islam are written throughout its document. Islam has to be protected. Yet Islam is NOT a HUMAN with HUMAN RIGHTS. It is a belief system . The only VIOLENT religion (or political religion). It is violent in word and deed. And yet the rest of us, whose religions or lack of religion are not used as justification for murder or terrorism, are criticised and to be gagged.

      We will all roast in hell before we will agree to THAT nonsense for a primitive neanderthal “religion”.

      Of course the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination. Do you understand NOTHING about the nuances of language? But if their government insists on promoting violence and will NOT EVER recognise Israel and are intent on its destruction, what the hell can the Palestinian people expect?

      No civilised nation should back Hamas in the court of public opinion. Of course behind the scenes moderate people in Hamas should (probably ) be spoken with. But only if they change their stance on the destruction of Israel.

      Israel is the only true beacon of democracy in the Middle East right now. Even if Gaza and other states have limited forms of democracy, there is no sense at all in developed countries saying – ‘All right then – let Israel disappear off the face of the map because we really must not hurt the Palestinians feelings.’

      It’s more productive that we help them see in which ways we think their (Hamas) leaders are behaving like bastards and are making the Palestinian people lose out.

      Israel too has a democratically elected government. But Israel has NOT said Gaza and the rest of Palestine should be wiped off the face of the earth. It vacated Gaza, and let it become a hell-hole run by its useless violent rulers – HAMAS.

      Israel wants a two-state solution. Gaza wants rid of Israel.

      I am dictating nothing to anyone.

      People need to see their government in Gaza for what it is or has been. If the Hamas Charter still applies – go and look it up – no civilised nation should agree to that. It means the end of Israel. I do not want to see the end of the Palestinian state – or the end of Israel.

      But I am dictating nothing. If people want to continue to support Hamas and Hamas refuses to recognise Israel then this war goes on – FOREVER.

      Clear enough for you?

  8. Caela Says:

    I feel the need to speak up. I don’t like the way everyone is being mean to Israel. I get it, big brother is no longer in the playground to protect her but that doesn’t mean we all kick Israel around. Remember what Netanyahu said? “We have a right to survive. We have a right to live.” Do not begrudge Israel the right to defend itself.

    I agree that we should respect and work with who ever is democratically elected but when that group runs around firing rockets to a neighboring country and saying that they do not have the right to exist simply because their belief is different, it is kind of a double standard. Well, in a way both sides are wrong as well as right in the Israel-Palestine conflict, that much we can agree upon.

    And as with the ban, I think Mr. Pete would agree that we cannot begrudge Canada the right to ban Galloway. For a country whose sons are fighting the War on Terror in Afghanistan, it is kind of insulting to their sons in the battle field to allow the entry of someone supporting the very people they are fighting with.

    And the very fact that Galloway is raising money for Hamas means that he is somewhat “intervening” with Gaza’s democratically-elected government (sic). I think there is something against “foreign funding of political parties” — but what do I know, after all a good portion of Hamas funding comes from Iran.

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Right CAela,

      And Pete should recall WHO is funding his beloved Hamas – Iran (& Syria) and why Iran is doing this, before he talks in his high-minded way about ONLY supporting a democratically elected government. Hamas does not need Galloway. They have plenty of all they need from Israel’s other regional enemies. But of course Hamas will USE Galloway because he is a westerner speaking up for terrorists.

      I say let the idiot speak. He makes the point about knowing your friends better than silencing him ever could.

      This is interesting too – on who REALLY runs the British media – and it ain’t Israel.

  9. Pete Says:

    I understand the nuances of language perfectly well thank you and I’m also perfectly capable of putting two and two together, as you’ve already learnt to your cost. Galloway hasn’t broken any laws here, so publicly and openly calling for him to be arrested tells me everything I need to know about your concept of justice.

    Sure, I don’t dispute that Hamas is officially designated as a terrorist organisation but then… so was Nelson Mandela’s ANC. You can’t wish them away, if the fourth biggest war machine on the planet can’t smash them then I think it’s safe to assume your weasel words won’t do it either.

    Hamas have stated repeatedly over the past ten years that they will accept a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, basically that’s the international consensus which has been on the table for the past three decades. Incidentally, this is also the position of the Arab League, which Syria and Iran have also stated repeatedly and publicly that they accept, the only two countries which reject theis consensus are Israel and the US. So the question we should be asking is: why are the US and Israel repeatedly blocking a negotiated peace settlement?

    The recent US-Israeli attack on Gaza was meticulously planned. And we should be clear – Washington was critically involved at every level. Even the timing was carefully chosen: the first air-strike was launched just after noon local time on a saturday, when lots of peaople were milling around and children were returning home from school, with the result that over 200 people were killed within the first few minutes.

    The offensive was launched on December 27th; four days later the Pentagon quietly announced that it had commissioned a German ship to deliver 3,000 tons of military equipment to Israel. Not many people in the States asked questions of this (that’s interesting, that few asked questions) but the Penatgon had an answer for those that did: this material is not destined for the present operation, it won’t get there in time. That’s also interesting, there was a timeframe and Washington knew what it was. Indeed, they probably framed it, the offensive was eventually called off on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, carefully avoiding even the marginal possibility that the new President might actually say something about it.

    Galloway is trying to protect Canada’s “sons of the battle field” from pointless death by having them brought home – unless anybody on this forum can come up with a better way of protecting them then yes, I do begrudge the ban. In any case the last time I checked, Afghanistan is not under Canadian sovereignty so they have no business being there.

    And it’s politically stupid anyway, there are already signs that it’s starting to backfire spectacularly and it has also given considerable publicity to the Gaza aid convoy, something which previously had been alnost universally ignored by the media.

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      So good of you to provide the INSIDE picture of the politicing from you and your “sources”, Pete. I assume you are Canadian?

      This site is not about tossing one source’s thoughts and another’s around in order to score points.

      I have a busy few days and little time to spend on such as you. But since you have tried to defend your position I will only say this:

      If your nuance-reading is as powerful as you think it is, do you see NO geo-politicing going on from the non-western side? Or is it only we in the evil west who are up to tricks?

      As for the timing of the Israeli offensive – I should HOPE they would timed it right for themselves and not their enemy. Obama btw, will do exactly as Bush would have done. He is learning that you cannot talk to those who will not listen.

      Watch this space.

      My concern right now is creeping Islamisation of the west. You’d probably LOVE it! Then, when Anjem Choudary hangs his flag of Islam over Downing Street, you, me and all of us can stop criticising anything to do with Hamas, Muslims or Islam under threat of death.

      So YOU’D be happy, no doubt.

      I have no interest in a nobody like Galloway except to show him up for what he is – a treacherous fool who has been suckered.

      (Off the computer for the rest of the day, and probably much of tomorrow. So don’t moan if I don’t get back to your inevitable response.)

  10. Pete Says:

    “..it is Canada which has banned Hamas’s representative, Galloway. Tough to get your head round?”

    Yes, that is tough to get my head around. Galloway does not claim to be visiting Canada as a representative of Hamas, nor does Hamas claim that he represents them. As far as I know, neither party has ever claimed that Galloway “represents” Hamas.

    “So good of you to provide the INSIDE picture of the politicing from you and your “sources”, Pete. I assume you are Canadian?”

    There’s no need to be so bloody sniffy. I thought this was a serious forum discussing serious issues, looks like I thought wrong. Jesus, I’ve only been here 5 minutes and you’re already starting to sound like the snivelling little tosspot that takes his ball home, because nobody lets him win.

    And I’m British, not that I see what that’s got to do with anything.

    “This site is not about tossing one source’s thoughts and another’s around in order to score points.”

    What is it about then? Mutual masturbation?

    “I have a busy few days and little time to spend on such as you. But since you have tried to defend your position I will only say this:

    If your nuance-reading is as powerful as you think it is, do you see NO geo-politicing going on from the non-western side? Or is it only we in the evil west who are up to tricks?”

    No no, you don’t understand at all – we (by “we” I mean 90% of the world’s population) didn’t invade anybody’s country, Bush, Blair and the other Neocons did, cheered along all the way by the likes of you – so if anything, the onus is on YOU to defend YOUR position… and you’re not making a very good hash of it.

    “As for the timing of the Israeli offensive – I should HOPE they would timed it right for themselves and not their enemy. Obama btw, will do exactly as Bush would have done. He is learning that you cannot talk to those who will not listen.”

    So you admit then that all that crap Israeli propaganda about “avoiding civilian casualties” is… well… crap Israeli propaganda?

    “Watch this space.”

    We are.

    “My concern right now is creeping Islamisation of the west.”

    1) Your “concern” does not justify a) invading Iraq or Afghanistan, b) bombing the bejesus out of innocent civilians in Gaza or c) any of the other, ongoing and longstanding atrocities in the occupied territories.

    2) It really ought to be transparently obvious by now to anyone with half a brain that the invasion of Iraq was sold to us on the basis of a pack of lies.

    3) There’s nothing “creeping” about crashing into someone else’s country uninvited, setting it on fire, plundering their economy and then leaving a broken and shattered society in your wake, along with over 1 million corpses – and your hypocrisy is no less staggering now than it was when Blair disappeared without trace up Bush’s a$$ in the first place.

    It’s the fact that you cannot comprehend these facts which explains the evident bias that runs through every comment you’ve made on this forum, right down to your hideously sycophantic “TB”. I assume you mean Tony Blair there as opposed to tuberculosis, though frankly, I’d sooner have the infection making executive decisions in number 10. Whatever else you say about tubercolosis, at least it’s less dangerous and doesn’t pretend to be something other than a disease – which is more than you can say for Blair.

    “So YOU’D be happy, no doubt.”

    I’m an atheist.

    “I have no interest in a nobody like Galloway except to show him up for what he is – a treacherous fool who has been suckered.”

    Yeah good, except that he’s running rings around the fucking lot of you.

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Hi there Pete!

      A Brit? Defending Galloway!

      Well that’s clarified the respectability of your opinions on these issues.

      As for this:

      “I understand the nuances of language perfectly well thank you and I’m also perfectly capable of putting two and two together, as you’ve already learnt to your cost.”

      To MY cost?

      In which way? Opinions cost nothing and usually mean less. And you have not won any of your trite points with oft-repeated and wrong accusations about cause and effect.

      You are as incapable of defending your defence of Galloway as you probably consider I am of defending Blair.

      The main difference between these two men is that one had to make the IMPORTANT decisions, whether we agree with him or not. The other pretended to care about deaths to give import to HIS opinions.

      Galloway, imho, is a traitor to Britain and to western freedom, and is in the pay of radical Islam, AS WE ALL KNOW.

      I seldom use that “as we all know” phrase, as it irritates me no end when people apply it to Blair and what they THINK they know about him. But for Galloway, I’ll change the habit of a lifetime. He is, imho, a paid lackey, used and abused, although probably willingly accepting EVERY word of his paymasters.

      When Britain – (you’re British so you should TRY to remember) – invaded Iraq, OVER 63% of the population were with Blair on this. The argument then centred on whether or not Blair had lied over WMDs to get us to back him. And from then people started to drift away in support encouraged by his opponents (of all sorts). The papers, especially such as The Independent, did their destruction job on Blair’s integrity and motives, insisting they KNEW everything was fixed around a position already taken.

      Interesting that the other day I noticed Dannatt complaining that Blair was not prepared for this invasion, and says he should have been organized THREE MONTHS earlier than March 2003!!!

      HOW could he have done this, since he hadn’t yet taken the decision?

      In the long run you and I will never agree on this. I don’t accept that Blair or Bush CAUSED the number of deaths you mention, and I don’t even accept the numbers.

      It must be irritating for you to notice that people in Iraq are settling into a far better existence that many thought would ever happen.

      Meanwhile the insurgents continue to kill the Iraqi people. It is not the troops doing the suicide bombing. It never has been.

      The killers are those from neighbouring lands with an agenda linked to taking over the region, doing away with Israel, and eventually taking over the west. They are working at various strands of that right now throughout the world, and not just in Europe, in case you haven’t noticed.

      NONE of this happened as a result of 9/11 or the Iraq invasion. If you believe that, you’ll believe GG is a good guy.

      All your three numbered points are WRONG, imho.

      But there we are. It is clear we will have to agree to differ.

      First they’ll come for the unbelievers … that’s you and me in the same boat. What a thought!

      I expect you’ll say that’s scaremongering.

      Well, perhaps I’m wrong about this. On the other hand, perhaps you are.

      As for Galloway – running what around whom?

      You’re having a laugh, I assume?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s