But wait, wouldn't that make somebody a racist tosser?
I reckon it probably would, yes. The man is an insult to cats. My cats don't have a racist bone in their bodies, they will purr and cuddle with all nationalities of cat lover.
I reckon it probably would, yes. The man is an insult to cats. My cats don't have a racist bone in their bodies, they will purr and cuddle with all nationalities of cat lover.
Of course Israel doesnt compare to SA. The atrocities committed by Israel far out weigh what happened in SA. There are plenty of issues in and around the region. Jerusalem is just one. Occupied territories being another one, "the wall" being another, the 1000+ UN mandates that Israel chooses to ignore, the humanitarian atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinians another.
If all he does is manipulate people to massage his ego, I guess thats better than what Israel has done to the Palestinians. Come on, even you can see that? Or do you agree with what israel does?
It is impossible to analyse the SA/Israel issues on the same basis. One was a purely racial issue stemming from the European powers desires to defeat the others while also claiming to spread morality and light into the less civilised worlds. In this way, it was one-sided bullying, by modern standards. The Israel (essentially Jerusalem) issue is far more complex and is a religious issue over the rights and will of the Lord Himself. On this basis, terms like 'illegal' do not exist since it is accepted by both parties that the Lord, not an ephemeral, temporal organisation like the UN, will decide what constitutes legality. Both sides in this conflict broadly accept this so the intervention of a cat-imitating charlatan and his ilk is a meaningless distraction.
I am separating the two points here - the Jerusalem issue and the other since concessions would be possible in the latter aspect but never in the former. From a historical perspective, this 'liberation' of Jerusalem is something that was dreamt of by poets, politicians, and artists alike during many long, dark centuries. The issue over Gaza is of no spiritual value and is just part of this wider game that has detracted from the main issue; neither side gains from the current state of affairs in that region.
I also will add here that events in just the last two days (Birmingham loons, Spurs attack in Lyon) highlight the issue of antisemitism rising in Europe which will only strengthen the resolve of many fighting that particular corner.
Backing Galloway is the only indefensible thing in this argument, no matter what 'side' one is on
He regards Israel as a pariah state, which is illegally occupying land that they shouldn't be occupying, and not only do they refuse to withdraw from it, they go on to occupy even more, add to that the control they have over every aspect of life in the Gaza strip and I can see why he wouldn't want to recognise Israel as having any legitimate point of view and debating with an Israeli would suggest recognition.
So it is a boycott on political grounds. You may not like him (and that would be fair enough) but this is not a racist position to take.
A bit of a slagging on a mediocre internet forum and that's everything sorted?
Another notch on your 'comedy retort' post and all is well.
Good for you.
Not really. He's well and truly on my 'never would be missed' list. But there's bugger all I can do about it. I'm pretty sure I'd lose my firearms certificate if I achieved my ambitions.
Once, I used to sort of admire Galloway, he had more intelligence than the average politician and very good public speaking skills. On radio shows he was an interesting listen (only if capped at 10 minutes or so as he repeats himself a lot).
Now he's just a sad, bitter, brainwashed monkey dancing the tune of radicalised muslims.
I really pity him and what he's been reduced to, all for the sake of keeping his name in the public attention.
He is living proof never to go against the main political parties.
Others have 'gone against' mainstream parties and emerged with their honour intact. Galloway is special, in that respect, forgive the pun. His 'party' doesn't represent mainstream Islam even, it's just for the nutters.
When Scotland detach themselves , we can deport back to them.
No thanks. I'm not a Scot, but I love Scotland, and wouldn't wish such a man on them, unless it's to reclaim sovereignty on an uninhabited island. That might be perfect.
Others have 'gone against' mainstream parties and emerged with their honour intact. Galloway is special, in that respect, forgive the pun. His 'party' doesn't represent mainstream Islam even, it's just for the nutters.
No thanks. I'm not a Scot, but I love Scotland, and wouldn't wish such a man on them, unless it's to reclaim sovereignty on an uninhabited island. That might be perfect.
He is living proof never to go against the main political parties.
How so? He's still an MP. He still gets quoted. He still gets to ask questions and gets publicity for his causes. Plenty of other Labour MPs and most of the Lib Dems were also against the Iraq war.
What stood him apart and caused him to be booted out of Labour was not him going "against the main political parties" but he, in their words, was inciting foreign forces to rise up against British troops. He'd still probably be a member of the Labour party if not for that.
Well done George ..just right to .Israelis have never apologised or even considered what murder and genocide they did to the Palastine and the surrounding areas. They are no better that the Hilter inspired Nazis .
Galloway is getting better and better at exposing these vile governments.
The guy is just a sad, attention seeking t*at.
I don't like Israeli policies either, but I wouldn't refuse to debate with one individual from that country. That's taking out your wider beliefs on a single person, which is plain nasty.
Comments
But he would.
I reckon it probably would, yes. The man is an insult to cats. My cats don't have a racist bone in their bodies, they will purr and cuddle with all nationalities of cat lover.
He's a bit hard of understanding about facts, really.
Tell that to the mice:mad::D
It is impossible to analyse the SA/Israel issues on the same basis. One was a purely racial issue stemming from the European powers desires to defeat the others while also claiming to spread morality and light into the less civilised worlds. In this way, it was one-sided bullying, by modern standards. The Israel (essentially Jerusalem) issue is far more complex and is a religious issue over the rights and will of the Lord Himself. On this basis, terms like 'illegal' do not exist since it is accepted by both parties that the Lord, not an ephemeral, temporal organisation like the UN, will decide what constitutes legality. Both sides in this conflict broadly accept this so the intervention of a cat-imitating charlatan and his ilk is a meaningless distraction.
I am separating the two points here - the Jerusalem issue and the other since concessions would be possible in the latter aspect but never in the former. From a historical perspective, this 'liberation' of Jerusalem is something that was dreamt of by poets, politicians, and artists alike during many long, dark centuries. The issue over Gaza is of no spiritual value and is just part of this wider game that has detracted from the main issue; neither side gains from the current state of affairs in that region.
I also will add here that events in just the last two days (Birmingham loons, Spurs attack in Lyon) highlight the issue of antisemitism rising in Europe which will only strengthen the resolve of many fighting that particular corner.
Backing Galloway is the only indefensible thing in this argument, no matter what 'side' one is on
A bit of a slagging on a mediocre internet forum and that's everything sorted?
Another notch on your 'comedy retort' post and all is well.
Good for you.
Well no because Israeli's are not a race. GG would (and has) debated the issue of Israel with Jews (who aren't Israelis).
JB3 has already explained it well
So it is a boycott on political grounds. You may not like him (and that would be fair enough) but this is not a racist position to take.
Not really. He's well and truly on my 'never would be missed' list. But there's bugger all I can do about it. I'm pretty sure I'd lose my firearms certificate if I achieved my ambitions.
Mediocre ? DS is the biz
Now he's just a sad, bitter, brainwashed monkey dancing the tune of radicalised muslims.
I really pity him and what he's been reduced to, all for the sake of keeping his name in the public attention.
Others have 'gone against' mainstream parties and emerged with their honour intact. Galloway is special, in that respect, forgive the pun. His 'party' doesn't represent mainstream Islam even, it's just for the nutters.
No thanks. I'm not a Scot, but I love Scotland, and wouldn't wish such a man on them, unless it's to reclaim sovereignty on an uninhabited island. That might be perfect.
*pats mordirith's head*
How so? He's still an MP. He still gets quoted. He still gets to ask questions and gets publicity for his causes. Plenty of other Labour MPs and most of the Lib Dems were also against the Iraq war.
What stood him apart and caused him to be booted out of Labour was not him going "against the main political parties" but he, in their words, was inciting foreign forces to rise up against British troops. He'd still probably be a member of the Labour party if not for that.
The guy is just a sad, attention seeking t*at.
I don't like Israeli policies either, but I wouldn't refuse to debate with one individual from that country. That's taking out your wider beliefs on a single person, which is plain nasty.
I doubt he's got many sympathisers there. Syria or Palestine is more his cup of tea.
True, but still a bastard.