-------------------- All posts foretold by Nostradamus.
Turing test failures: 6 Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Whoa! That was awesome. Thanks Jason.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Responding to Galloway, the war doesn't have a starting point. And if it does, it certainly is not 1967. For example, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded in 1964 and started attacking Israel in 1965.
Israeli leaders have expressed no similar sentiments regarding Lebanon.
Hezbollah's stated desire to eliminate Israel is why Israel was occupying Hezbollah's stronghold of South Lebanon until 2000, when Israel unilaterally withdrew. And that stated desire is why Hezbollah stocked itself with thousands of rockets (apparently donated by Syria and Iran) since then, rather than joining with peace-loving Lebanese to follow the example of Jordan and Eqypt -- the nations which have made a treaties of peace with Israel on the basis of territorial compromise. Hezbollah's desire to destroy Israel is also why Hezbollah was determined to fire the rockets that have brought the north of Israel to an economic standstill for the past month.
I think Galloway is wrong that this war made Hezbollah, which already gets a third of the vote in Lebanon, significantly more popular. If they win the next election, I'll be shown wrong. Now, Galloway is probably is right that the war went poorly for Israel. Conventional wisdom is that the UN cease file will be implemented, but won't hold. This is because Hezbollah has not been sufficiently degraded in its capabilities, still wants to eliminate Israel, and has found in the rockets a potent weapon.
By the way, Israeli border towns have long lived with shelling, something that may be almost unimaginable to Americans and puts the lie to claims of Israel's enormous power. However, this idea that the heart of the country is subject to random medium range missile hits for which there is no defense is not something Israel can survive with over the long term, even just in economic terms. Thus the fear that this war was merely a first round of several.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I respect Galloway for laying into Sky. Sky news is another murdoch controlled news agency and while its bias isn't as bad (yet) as Fox, it's edging it's way there.
I supose it's sky's bad for putting him against an interviewer who clearly isn't used to her questioning being picked apart and certainly doesn't have the knowledge or facts to rebutt his arguments.
I mostly agree with his points in principle, even if he does state them in a overly strong way.
But I do like to see biased interviewers (who should be neutral really) who ask loaded questions in the hope of getting a juicy quote to display on the screen in headlines for the next day or so, get their arse handed to them in such a manner.
Posts: 824 | From: England | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the UK is pretty unhappy with Israel's actions but it's frustrating having a PM who just goes along with Bush, regardless of the views of the people who elected him.
We're also much less tollerant of blatent bias in news programs (although are fine with our biased tabloids...) which is why this video will please lots of UK types.
However there are lots of people who dislike the MP, partially due to extreme views and partially due to the media constantly critisising him (I'm sure there's a video of him in big brother on youtube)
Posts: 824 | From: England | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abigsmurf: I respect Galloway for laying into Sky.
Presenter Anna Botting was bullied by Galloway and responded. Googling her, I found another tough Botting interview with, of all people to be tough on, the Chief Rabbi of Britain. Her final question/statement to the rabbi:
quote:Well it is hurting the Palestinians. It is also leaving don’t you think a legacy of utter hatred on the Palestinians towards Israel, Always talk about breeding suicide bombers of the future with this sort of action.
Contrast Galloway's "laying into" the even-handed Ms. Botting with his fawning treatment of mass grave filler Saddam Hussein:
Then there's Galloway's inhumane response on seeing the wounded and deceased bodies of his adversaries:
quote:They seem to be getting a bloody good hiding on the other half of the screen.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, contrast Galloway's TV treatment of Anna Botting with the rough time he gives Nasrallah:
quote:I glorify the Hezbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hezbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
And I just found this addtional Nasrallah gem from the famously fact-checked New Yorker:
quote:"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli." To Saad-Ghorayeb, this statement "provides moral justification and ideological justification for dehumanizing the Jews." In this view, she went on, "the Israeli Jew becomes a legitimate target for extermination. And it also legitimatizes attacks on non-Israeli Jews."
Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton State Department, once told me, "There's a fundamental view here of the Jew as subhuman. Hezbollah is the direct ideological heir of the Nazis." Saad-Ghorayeb disagrees. Nasrallah may skirt the line between racialist anti-Semitism and theological anti-Judaism, she said, but she argued that mainstream Hezbollah ideology provides the Jews with an obvious way to repair themselves in God's eyes: by converting to Islam.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read in Wikipedia that the reason Galloway visited Hussein is to try and convince him to allow Hanz Blix into the country, but the neutality of that section of Galloway's article is being disputed.
-------------------- "High-Five!" - Borat Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HSSenior: I read in Wikipedia that the reason Galloway visited Hussein is to try and convince him to allow Hanz Blix into the country, but the neutality of that section of Galloway's article is being disputed.
Really? Never heard that suggested. I'm afraid I find it impossible to attribute positive motivations to someone like George Galloway. It's hugely embarrassing that something like him is a Member of Parliament.
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by HSSenior: Oh, I get it: I thought people supported him just for his views on Israel, but Sky News is like Fox News, eh?
Galloway testified in the US Senate after he was accused of corruption having to do with Iraqi oil while Saddam was in power. You might be interested in reading the transcript of that testimony.
I don't know too much about him but I like what I've seen. Not sure why he's seen as an embarrassment.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From that transcript, it seems that he wasn't necessairly buddies with saddam at all, he was just trying to straighten things out. I'm still really weary on his support of Hazbollah though..
-------------------- "High-Five!" - Borat Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Galloway is one of those unfortunate cases where someone can become a very visible and vocal spokesperson for various views, but have enough on their personal side to smear them with that their publicity for those views becomes a mixed blessing.
In the UK as of late he's spent a lot of time cosying up to more conservative Islamic groups and as a result, has had less to say on women's and gay rights than many from his "side" would like him to.
He also has an association and/or sympathy with certain groups (Saddam, Hezbollah) that are rather worrying.
-------------------- Hello, I love you - won't you tell me your name? Hello! I'm good for nothing - will you love me just the same?
quote:Originally posted by HSSenior: From that transcript, it seems that he wasn't necessairly buddies with saddam at all, he was just trying to straighten things out. I'm still really weary on his support of Hazbollah though..
According to the Senate report on his testimony, he lied in saying that he hadn't taken money from Saddam. See starting page 126, but I have to warn that it is a long section of a longer download:
Galloway disputes the committee and asks them to indict him so he can clear his name, but has not tried his usual techinique of lauching a libel suit (may be impossible in US legal system, although he was sucessful against the Christian Science Monitor).
I haven't yet read most of the Senate committee report evidence against Galloway, but they do seem to have been thorough.
There is a lot more I could say about Galloway, professionally and personally, all of which goes against my normal principle here of refraining from character assasination. Galloway is a Stalinist, which can be shown not only by his own pro-Stalin statement*, but also by his general approach combining fawning towards leftist-hero dictators with slashing attacks such as we saw with Anna Botting. Even the way he humiliates his traditionally-minded wives with flagrant adultery shows the Stalinist approach of exploiting the truly powerless for self-aggrandizement while charmingly painting yourself as a champion of the weak.
___________________________ *
quote:"Just as Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam plotted Iraqís own Great Leap Forward," he says, and amazingly, this isn't a criticism. "He managed to keep his country together until 1991. Indeed, he is likely to have been the leader in history who came closest to creating a truly Iraqi national identity, and he developed Iraq and the living, health, social and education standards of his own people."
This is how a Stalinist thinks from the inside:
quote:"Saddam was a ruthless and cruel man who thought little of signing the death warrants of even close comrades. In this regard he was little different to the leaders of most regimes: we just don't know it in our own countries yet."
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can he disaprove of Saddam and yet take money from him is my question. But as the british folks have said here: I think some enjoy the sky news clip because Sky news is a biased source, apparently. can someone provide another outlook on the information Steve presents?
-------------------- "High-Five!" - Borat Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HSSenior: I read in Wikipedia that the reason Galloway visited Hussein is to try and convince him to allow Hanz Blix into the country, but the neutality of that section of Galloway's article is being disputed.
posted
Saddam is a "leftist" now? Oh, the spin, the spin, the spin! But Clinton.
-------------------- Give big space to the festive dog that makes sport in roadway. Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel spokes. Posts: 4267 | From: Seattle | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Johnny Slick: Saddam is a "leftist" now? Oh, the spin, the spin, the spin! But Clinton.
Johnny, I'm not the one who says Saddam "plotted a great leap forward*," Galloway is.
I do reaffirm that, for George Galloway, Saddam and Nasrallah are "leftist hero-dictators," in the sense that they are heros for his kind of left. Flawed heros, but heros. For Galloway, the fact that Saddam rounded up local Communists for the mass graves, and that Nasrallah doesn't care about socialism (not sure there) or arrests gays for a merciful one year prison term, tells against those leaders, but hardly is as crucial as their stance towards the West. ____________________ * The "Great Leap Forward" was a Maoist economic policy regarded as an unmitigated disaster by almost everyone who knows about it except Galloway.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jonny T: Galloway is one of those unfortunate cases where someone can become a very visible and vocal spokesperson for various views, but have enough on their personal side to smear them with that their publicity for those views becomes a mixed blessing.
Exhibit 1:
-------------------- Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Posts: 2372 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg: Johnny, I'm not the one who says Saddam "plotted a great leap forward*," Galloway is.
What is it we are suppose to take from that comment, Steve? I'm confused.
So, what does it matter that Galloway has reported that Saddam had a plan for advancing his country? By commenting about that does that mean he is a supporter of everything Saddam has done. You just reported/commented on Mao's Great Leap Forward. Does that make you a Maoist?
And here's a link critical of the anti-Galloway spin you linked.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Johnny Slick: Saddam is a "leftist" now? Oh, the spin, the spin, the spin! But Clinton.
Johnny, I'm not the one who says Saddam "plotted a great leap forward*," Galloway is.
I do reaffirm that, for George Galloway, Saddam and Nasrallah are "leftist hero-dictators," in the sense that they are heros for his kind of left. Flawed heros, but heros. For Galloway, the fact that Saddam rounded up local Communists for the mass graves, and that Nasrallah doesn't care about socialism (not sure there) or arrests gays for a merciful one year prison term, tells against those leaders, but hardly is as crucial as their stance towards the West. ____________________ * The "Great Leap Forward" was a Maoist economic policy regarded as an unmitigated disaster by almost everyone who knows about it except Galloway.
No, your comments really apply only to Galloway himself. You can extrapolate all you want, but in the end Saddam was not a left-wing dictator. That's just an absurd comment on its face.
-------------------- Give big space to the festive dog that makes sport in roadway. Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel spokes. Posts: 4267 | From: Seattle | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Steve Esienberg is taking Galloway's comment out of context?
-------------------- "High-Five!" - Borat Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I don't believe Steve is per ce but he's relying on a source who seems to be taking Galloway's comments out of context or making them into something they aren't by attributing meaning that Galloway claims not to have intended.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, but I still don't agree with his views on Hezbollah
-------------------- "High-Five!" - Borat Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Whose view of Hezbollah? And exactly what part of it?
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Galloway's view: he seems to support Hezbollah no matter what they actually believe: they want Israel to be destroyed. Honestly, I'm not on either side of the Israel/ Palestine conflict, but it's one thing to express one's dislike for a country's government, but it's quite another to want an entire country to be destroyed.
according to this article (Even though it needs to be "cleaned up" )they've apparently softened their views on Israel and only dislike Zionists, but I'm still weary. I just don't like their or any type of radicalism or the us vs. them mentality of this dispute.
-------------------- "High-Five!" - Borat Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sara at home: Whose view of Hezbollah? And exactly what part of it?
I would say it's the part about glorifying (glorify is Galloway's word) people who are out to kill my family (and people) unless we convert to Islam. From Hezbollah TV {Al-Manar):
Besides that, as I guess I made clear earlier, I just plain don't like the guy.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Well, Israel is killing people.
BTW, the context for your quote:
quote:Just as all George Bush and Tony Blair have to say over the slaughter of Lebanese children is that Israel has a right to defend itself and all's fair in the war against terrorists.
That makes it doubly important that the anti-war movement raises its voice clearly. To be for peace means to be for the justice without which there can be no peace. To be for justice means to take sides against injustice. The invasion of Lebanon by Israel, for that's what it is, is a monstrous injustice.
I side with the resistance to that injustice. Hizbollah is leading that resistance. I do not hesitate to say, and Blair and his law officers may take note, that I glorify that resistance.
I glorify the Hizbollah national resistance movement, and I glorify the leader of Hizbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
-------------------- Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread. Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sara at home: Whose view of Hezbollah? And exactly what part of it?
I would say it's the part about glorifying (glorify is Galloway's word) people who are out to kill my family (and people) unless we convert to Islam. From Hezbollah TV {Al-Manar):
Besides that, as I guess I made clear earlier, I just plain don't like the guy.
you have family in Israel, aye?
-------------------- "High-Five!" - Borat Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abigsmurf: I respect Galloway for laying into Sky.
Presenter Anna Botting was bullied by Galloway and responded. Googling her, I found another tough Botting interview with, of all people to be tough on, the Chief Rabbi of Britain. Her final question/statement to the rabbi:
quote:Well it is hurting the Palestinians. It is also leaving don’t you think a legacy of utter hatred on the Palestinians towards Israel, Always talk about breeding suicide bombers of the future with this sort of action.
Contrast Galloway's "laying into" the even-handed Ms. Botting with his fawning treatment of mass grave filler Saddam Hussein:
Then there's Galloway's inhumane response on seeing the wounded and deceased bodies of his adversaries:
quote:They seem to be getting a bloody good hiding on the other half of the screen.
Probably not good to cite an article which contains this at the top:
quote:Editor's note: Documents at the center of the allegations contained in this article have since been shown to be forgeries. The story detailing that Monitor conclusion is available here here. The Monitor therefore acknowledges that the allegations in the documents are false and has apologized to Mr. Galloway for their publication and for the embarrassment and distress caused to him. To underline the sincerity of this apology, the Monitor has paid Mr. Galloway a sum in damages.
That interviewer is anything but even handed, she goes into each interview with a clear agenda. Just look at the first question she asked galloway there, if that wasn't a biased, loaded question, I don't know what is.
If you're an interviewer and you ask questions like she does it's no suprise you end up with hostile interviewees.
The fact she HAS a final statement in that other interview is another example of bias and spin. What better way to win a debate then to make a comment after the other guy goes off air that he can't answer?
Posts: 824 | From: England | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HSSenior: you have family in Israel, aye?
Not close family.
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
