Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Understanding the job of the Ethics Commissioner | Main | The great lunge forward »

Friday, May 26, 2006

Galloway: Beyond Sleaze

Unbelievable...yet somehow, from Galloway, not:

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.
In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"
Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened 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."

From scary to boring:

Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island's Communist dictator, Fidel Castro - whom he defended as a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys".
Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced.

Yawn. After Big Brother, how many ways are there left, for Galloway to embarrass himself? Come to think of it, I'd rather not find out.

Read the story.

Cross-posted at Wonkitties.

Posted by wonkitties on May 26, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Galloway: Beyond Sleaze:


There are few people in the world more in need of a severe beating than Galloway.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-05-26 8:31:38 AM

That leotard he wore on Big Brother was the most effective suicide bomb I'VE ever seen.

Posted by: Joan Tintor | 2006-05-26 9:10:56 AM

Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-26 9:20:28 AM

I fail to see why Galloway's comments are controversial. He's right -- morally speaking.

If a private citizen, A, in the old West, came to a town and shot a few people, would the citizens of that town be justified in visiting A's town and shooting him, given that there was no other way to seek justice?

So why can't the victims of the Iraqi occupation seek justice on Blair when they've been injured? (I should point out that they would be similarly justified in assasinating Saddam if they were the victim of his policies.)

You're applying two standards of morality: one for government and one for the people. If government is allowed to do things private citizens are not, then freedom is but an expression.

Just because people vote for it, or a head of government calls for it, doesn't make it any more justified than if a private citizen did it. Theft is wrong, whether a tax collector sticks a gun in your face or a mugger does. Trespassing is wrong whether a punk kid does it, or an American soldier does it. And killing is wrong by anyone, no matter how fancy their uniform, or how strong their commitment to Allah, *unless* it is done in self-defence.

That Warwick suggests Galloway needs a beating for speaking his mind -- free speech is so scary! -- is all the proof we need that he an authoritarian.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-05-26 9:23:14 AM

"Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat." -- Set you free

Set you free,
I guess you can cast such stones because you're without sin?

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-05-26 9:27:08 AM


No, just following up on Warwick's suggestion put to the music of the early Ramones.

I only cast stones at false prophets ... ie those who present a wise facade by attempting to convince others they have an innate ability to predict the future. Very few have that ability, yet many try.

For example, anybody who predicted my beloved Oilers would not be able to beat Detroit, then San Jose and now Anaheim deserve to be stoned.

The reason for that is they are idiots poseurs who do not understand any outcome is possible.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-26 9:38:54 AM

R. Seymour -

"victims"?! "occupation"?!

"Free people" and "Liberation" would be more to the point.

Sheesh - the idiots around here......

Posted by: Stevie Eye | 2006-05-26 9:43:15 AM


I would also suggest the same remedy for the gurus of global warming advocacy.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but the average global temperature during one particularly long segment of the middle ages has been scientifically proven 1.5 degrees warmer than today's.

All I can say is it's a good thing they gave up their SUV's and decided to ride horses.

Sir Galloway must be living in a simllar fantasy world with his evident embracing of totalitarian solutions, the 20th century scourge responsible for millions of human deaths.

Fortunately for Sir Nitwit, the concept of retroactive abortion is repulsive to both sides of the debate.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-26 9:45:36 AM

Okay, I think we can make an exception for people who don't like the Oilers... That's just sensible policy...

(But you can't cast stones at false profits. We're all sinners.)

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-05-26 9:46:18 AM


Why would anybody cast stones at false profits?

I'd just scoop those up and put them in my retirement fund.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-26 9:50:36 AM


I feel like a chimp after reading your post.

Not sure who Teacher was until the woman with a man's brain described Margaret Thatcher ... then it all became clear.

Yes, Blair is a traitor to his ilk (I promised myself I'd slide my favourite word in today) and instead of being upset about Galloway, we should be sitting back in amusement as Britain's loony left continues its attack on its brothers.

Now that I think about it, Blair's politics are just as loony. And, two for two, so is his wife.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-26 10:35:24 AM

To compare Castro to Blair is simplistic, and ridiculous. Blair was elected, Castro tortures his own people.

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-05-26 2:27:30 PM

As for Galloways' balls. They are firmly planted in his Palestinian wife's hands ! She is the reason for his far left ideology, and Islamofasist support.

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-05-26 2:29:40 PM


You mean he supports jihadists because his wife is Palestinian?

Do you know for sure she's Muslim, or is she descended from the early Christians who have also inhabited that land for 2000 years?

There's an important distinction.

I'd seriously like to know. This is quite a fascinating twist.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-26 2:51:09 PM

Mr. Galloway also got a lot of very cheap oil from his friend Saddam for a bogus charity. Looks like he has 'friends' in many repressive regimes. Unlike CTV Marylooooo, I don't find him 'entertaining' and he is not a rebel, he is a disgrace.

Posted by: jema54j | 2006-05-26 9:06:56 PM

Set You free: She's Muslim, unless you have info. that I don't have ? I certainly can't see anyone with ties to 'Christian' palestinians being supporters of jihadists.

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-05-26 11:42:16 PM


Fair enough.

Yet, I am in daily yahoo list contact with Palestinian Christians who have concerns the Wall being built now will cut off access to their main temple in Jerusalem, one of the five geographical centres of the ancient Christian Church.

That is the same Christian temple their Jewish ancestors have worshipped at for the past 2000 years. Jesus was born in what is now called Palestine and the Jews he converted to his view were called Christian, yet a great majority were from Jewish ancestry.

According to them, they are extremely unhappy about how their concerns are being swept aside. It's a tragedy nobody knows about.

Yes, Galloway is definitely a nut-job but he's entitled to his delusions as long as we recognize them,resist them and continue to fight for our own freedoms. Just laugh. He's not worth hating.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-27 12:17:04 AM

Set YF: I'm curious, these Palestinian Christians worship at a 'temple', as opposed to a 'church' ? or is that just semantics ? As for Galloway, we can't let a man like him get away with anything. He does a lot of damage for a moron !

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-05-27 1:45:27 AM


Interchangable terminology defining a place of worship.

Technically, a church. And, despite what the MSM tell you, these people do exist.

Under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is a cave which contains fragments of the cross Jesus was crucified on (history readily available). So happens to be an Orthodox Church. The Wall will restrict access to this and similar churches.

Now, the existence of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem establishes three facts: 1) there was a Jesus, a Jew who was born and preached in what is today known as Palestine 2) he was crucified and 3) the mostly local Jewish local populace, along with a smaller proportion of the local tribes (including Arabs) who followed the message of peace as the best way of dealing with the Romans became known to be Christians.

Yet, they are no less Jewish than the people who challenged the Romans militarily and for their efforts had their temple destroyed in 70 AD. Just 50 years ago, a group of people led by some Messiah were successful in reclaiming something they claimed was promised to them. At least, that's the mythology I keep hearing ... even though nobody can name which Messiah in 1948 delivered Israel to those who claim to be the real Jews.

My question is ... who was the Messiah that delivered modern-day Israel? I've never heard of one, yet according to the old Jewish texts, the time of the Messiah's arrival can be easily calculated and 2000 years ago had been a topic of day-to-day conversation.

Yes, even though you never hear about them, the Palestinian Christians have lived continuously in Palestine for 2000 years and their ancestors have been there since the times of Moses.

Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. I'd be happy to share any knowledge I have. Just ask.

I would not advocate muzzling Galloway since he's quite willing to throw his ideas out there to be debated and therefore falls under the useful idiot category.

Apparently, Sir Dickwad has not heard the adage: better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're stupid than open it and have that suspicion confirmed.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-05-27 7:54:30 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.