Blasts in London
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 cpfc-rjd  Beckenham and the BBS 15 Jul 05 10.40am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Balham Burner at 15 Jul 2005 10:15am
George Galloway is scum. On 7/7/05 he couldn't even wait until the bodies were cold before he sought to gain publicity for his stalinist/Arabist views. If Bin Laden was at Calais with an Army people like Galloway would be waiting at Dover, cheering them on. Total :-w That's a bit of a misrepresentation of his views. BB, you and your labvour friends are probably still smarting from the Uber Blair Babe Oona's defeat to gorgeous George and it must still hurt (btw that election battle was dirty on BOTH sides.) Here's Galloway's statement: "We extend our condolences to those who have lost their lives today and our heartfelt sympathy to all those who have been injured by the bombs in London. No one can condone acts of violence aimed at working people going about their daily lives. They have not been a party to, nor are they responsible for, the decisions of their government. They are entirely innocent and we condemn those who have killed or injured them. The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years. We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world. We argued, as did the Security Services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings. We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East. Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence." George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow -------------------------------------------- This doesn't condone the attacks at all. PS. He's not a Stalinist, but more of a Trotskyist if anything (as are the SWP.)
"Her very Lowness with her head in a sling NEITHER LEFT OR RIGHT BUT OUT IN FRONT |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Balham Burner 15 Jul 05 10.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
"Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence" There is such a thing as nuance rjd - GG is clever enough not to be explicit. His message is obvious though - although I've never said he "condoned" the attacks. I always thought he was a stalinist rather than Trotskyite - same difference though really. I know people who worked in Bethnal Green and Bow for Oona King in the election, which included Iraqi Trade Unionists. His activists were alledgedly going round houses telling muslim voters not to vote for Oona King because she was Jewish. Total scum. Edited by Balham Burner (15 Jul 2005 10:52am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cpfc-rjd Beckenham and the BBS 15 Jul 05 10.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Balham Burner at 15 Jul 2005 10:47am
"Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence" There is such a thing as nuance rjd - GG is clever enough not to be explicit. His message is obvious though - although I've never said he "condoned" the attacks (unlike his support for attacks against Israel). I always thought he was a stalinist rather than Trotskyite - same difference though really. I know people who worked in Bethnal Green and Bow in the election. His activists were alledgedly going round Bengali houses telling them not to vote for Oona King because she was Jewish. Total scum. Edited by Balham Burner (15 Jul 2005 10:48am)
GG may be a leftie but he doesn't support Al-Queda and to say he does is frankly ludicrous. If anything, Respect is designed to get young radical Muslims involved in politics rather than fundamentalism. This is something that Al-Queda et al despise. Stalinism and Trotskyism are very different. In the old days, as a Labour man you'd have known that!
"Her very Lowness with her head in a sling NEITHER LEFT OR RIGHT BUT OUT IN FRONT |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 15 Jul 05 10.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Oooh - infighting between the lefties!!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cpfc-rjd Beckenham and the BBS 15 Jul 05 10.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
We're not the Judean Peoples Front, we're the Peoples Front of Judea etc etc
"Her very Lowness with her head in a sling NEITHER LEFT OR RIGHT BUT OUT IN FRONT |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Balham Burner 15 Jul 05 10.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote cpfc-rjd at 15 Jul 2005 10:52am
Quote Balham Burner at 15 Jul 2005 10:47am
"Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence" There is such a thing as nuance rjd - GG is clever enough not to be explicit. His message is obvious though - although I've never said he "condoned" the attacks (unlike his support for attacks against Israel). I always thought he was a stalinist rather than Trotskyite - same difference though really. I know people who worked in Bethnal Green and Bow in the election. His activists were alledgedly going round Bengali houses telling them not to vote for Oona King because she was Jewish. Total scum. Edited by Balham Burner (15 Jul 2005 10:48am)
GG may be a leftie but he doesn't support Al-Queda and to say he does is frankly ludicrous. If anything, Respect is designed to get young radical Muslims involved in politics rather than fundamentalism. This is something that Al-Queda et al despise. Stalinism and Trotskyism are very different. In the old days, as a Labour man you'd have known that! LOL!! Hey I know the difference between the beliefs of Stalin and Trotsky. Respect is another SWP front organisation which Galloway will discard when he gets bored. He has apparently already reneged on his promise to stand down after a term in favour of an ethnic minority candidate. As for dodgy tactics in BG - we didn't use (alledged) racism as an electoral tactic... I am surprised at you cpfc-rjd, you come accross as pretty smart. Believe nothing that Galloway propagates.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Balham Burner 15 Jul 05 11.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote halfmanhalfslug at 15 Jul 2005 10:58am
It's called debate, NPN. Balham Burner there is one key word in your post about Galloway -- "alleged". Proof please? Galloway's a prat, but at least he is an honest prat. And he made the US Senate look like the crooks they are. Galloway has exposed electoral fraud in his new constituency, why didn't you highlight that? Because it makes him look honest? COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Are you serious????? OK - I don't want to turn this into a Galloway rant. Let's get back to the point.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Balham Burner 15 Jul 05 11.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote halfmanhalfslug at 15 Jul 2005 10:58am
It's called debate, NPN. Balham Burner there is one key word in your post about Galloway -- "alleged". Proof please? Galloway's a prat, but at least he is an honest prat. And he made the US Senate look like the crooks they are. Galloway has exposed electoral fraud in his new constituency, why didn't you highlight that? Because it makes him look honest? From people who worked on the ground in BG - I trust what they say..but I say alleged because I didn't hear it with my own ears.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cpfc-rjd Beckenham and the BBS 15 Jul 05 11.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Balham Burner at 15 Jul 2005 10:59am
Galloway is not the devil, he has his problems (and a massive ego) but is a very good public speaker and his views will bring some much needed balance to the commons and the centrist coalition that exists at present (even if you don't agree with him.) but we'll leave that for another thread.
"Her very Lowness with her head in a sling NEITHER LEFT OR RIGHT BUT OUT IN FRONT |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 15 Jul 05 11.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote halfmanhalfslug at 15 Jul 2005 10:58am
It's called debate, NPN. Actually, it was aimed at rjd and BB - I'm afraid your opinions lost any remaining credibility with me after your last lengthy post in which you slated Petealiator for hurling insults and threats of violence followed by insulting him and threatening him with violence. The other two I disagree with on most things political, but still have some respect for their views, and they tend to structure their arguments a little better.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
NickinOX  Sailing country. 15 Jul 05 12.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote halfmanhalfslug at 15 Jul 2005 9:15am
To deny that Iraq is a major factor in the London bombings is disingenuous, and unhelpful. (Apologies to Reborn who can't handle long words but he's probably loitering around the playgrounds by now anyway, handing out sweeties.) Yes, 9/11 predated the current Iraq war, but 9/11 was an attack on America, not Britain. First, you complain about people attacking you and yet you do exactly the same, re. the above comments about reborn (and paedophilia) and Cucking (on another thread). I cannot see, given your comments, how you consider yourself to be any different from what you accuse them to be. The World Trade Centre was picked as it was a symbol of western capitalism. Read their rhetoric. It was an attack on any and all countries that support trade. By the way, more Britains were killed in 9/11 than last week thus to say it was not an attack on us is an absurd suggestion. Quote
Al Q have repeatedly stated their aims are not to restore the Islamic caliphate - something I'm not convinced would animate the majority of the world's Muslims anyway - but to restore the 'purity' of Arab and holy Islamic lands from US occupation. (Not my opinion, please note, but theirs.) NickinOX asked a while back which countries the US should withdraw from - let's start with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan and see how we get on. Israel may not have US troops but has zillions of dollars worth of money and equipment used to shoot children in their classrooms, do you not think this might affect people? Up to 2003, most Al Q attacks were against US territory, personnel, or interests. But now that the UK has joined the illegal invasion of Iraq, we are now a target - and hey presto, four big bangs go off. Before 2003 most Al-Qaida attacks were against europeans and others. Check the list given out by the BBC. Now they are mostly against ordinary Iraqis. IF they really want to liberate Iraq, why do they not only target Americans, and other occupying forces? The same could be said of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida has regularly changed its goals, from purity for Saudi to destruction of the west. I don't even think they know what they want. It is all an excuse for violence. The US has largely withdrawn its troops from Saudi, an original demand of Al-Qaida, Kuwait wants to keep them (as they pour huge amounts of money into the economy, the Afghan operation is a UN operation with many other countries taking part, and the operation would logistically collapse without the Americans. Thus leaving the millions who have returned to Afghanistan in the lurch. The Iraqi government wants the US to stay, for now, and a withdrawal would leave a terrible security vaccum that only the extremists could plug. Thus returning the country to a much worse state than it is currently in. The Palestinians receive millions of US dollars and also European money, and their corrupt politicians have stolen it. What is your point? I note that you use a typically emotive idea, what about the bus bombers blowing up Israeli children, is that not equally unjust? Quote
Ask any British Muslim and most will tell you they are angry about Iraq. If Iraq is not angering British Muslims as some of you claim, then can you please explain George Galloway's landslide election victory? Is there a large Scottish contingent in east London now? I have friends from that borough and I also checked the BBC election site. He did not win by a landside as you claim. Both sides stooped to the lowest common denminatorr in an incredibly racist campaign, which included multiple death threats and attacks on opponents. Furthermore, you highlight a good point for me. Those British Muslims might be upset about Iraq, but they by and large used the ballot box to legitimately show this. Those British bombers had a vote. They should have used it. Quote
We can never be 100% sure what motivated those four twisted souls, but we can be pretty sure that Iraq - where this country's forces contribute to a 7/7 every single day - was a major factor. How on earth do British troops contribute to a 7/7 every day in Iraq? They spend most of their time getting shot at trying to prevent such things. That is like saying the poilice here are contributing because they cannot catch all the bombers! Quote
We MUST understand - but not condone or excuse - the motivations for these murders, otherwise how can we stop the next ones? Denial is pointless and counter-productive. Like ignoring the fascists in our own ranks, be that South London or Yarmouth or wherever, we are only storing up bigger problems for later on. So we are right to ask the British Muslim population to watch their own, as we must do too... but we must also ensure that our country behaves ethically too, and that means not killing innocent people. 7/7 was a horrific day in London - and yet by comparison a quiet afternoon in Falluja. The world stopped for 2 minutes for 50 Londoners yesterday, but who stopped for even a moment for 20 Iraqi kids? Nobody is even counting their dead - and while they remain deemed worth less than us, they will fight back. I'd expect us to do the same if it happened to us. Yes there are people counting the Iraqi loss. I gave you a website that is counting the dead in Iraq. Thus again you are stating a falsehood. We do understand that there are people in Britain upset by the Iraq war. Almost 1 million marched peacefully in an anti-war rally. Many voted against the government, but the vast majority did not go out to deliberately target and kill innocent civilians. They have no justification for it, they are purely misguided murdering criminals. To try and give their ideas some credit provides them with the justification they are trying to claim for themselves. You also keep talking about they. These were not Iraqis fighting back trying to get rid of an external power in their own country. This was illegitimate British criminals, mudering fellow British for no valid reason other than their own misguided beliefs. You can bet that this was not cut and then pasted from somewhere else.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NickinOX Sailing country. 15 Jul 05 12.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote halfmanhalfslug at 15 Jul 2005 10:58am
It's called debate, NPN. Balham Burner there is one key word in your post about Galloway -- "alleged". Proof please? Galloway's a prat, but at least he is an honest prat. And he made the US Senate look like the crooks they are. He was not in front of the senate. His grandstanding was good theatre but little more than that. One crucial question was posed to him by the only left wing committee member and he refused to say whether he knew if his close firends had profited from the oil for food scandal. He was asked several times and failed to answer on each occassion. What does that tell you about his honesty. Edited by NickinOX (15 Jul 2005 12:27pm)
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.