I’ve watched the Galloway testimony this morning, thanks to Bahraini Blog who conveniently put up a link to the whole 47 minutes. From what I have seen, I don’t think the Senate knew that they were hosting a Patriot Missile that was about to be shoved up their nether regions!
Now before you respected ladies and gentlemen on the right jam my throat, please listen. The guy was erudite, cognizant of the facts, completely in command, and very obviously innocent. No one with that much composure and passion can be guilty, not matter how much acting classes that person has had. Period.
That is not to say of course that I agree with the gentleman, as much as I admire him, I stand for the Iraqi war. Its result in removing a tyrant that the Iraqis themselves could never have, barring God’s own intervention, and the result of which is that not only Iraq, but the whole Middle East is in a flux of change for the better. The Iraqis themselves have an historically opportune moment to spring-clean their house and install a democracy that will show us in the Middle East the way into the future. A thing that might very well be emulated for the next 100 years. However, I do stand with Mr. Galloway, especially that he has already been cleared and amply rewarded by successfully suing a British newspaper for wrongly portraying him as a recipient of illicit funds from the infamous Saddam oil-barrels back-handers.
Let me leave you with choice morsels plucked from our friends at Liberals Against Terrorism, the opinion of which should be read:
“Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty.
“I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as “many meetings” with Saddam Hussein. As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns.
“You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I’ve never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he’s your prisoner, I believe he’s in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places, I’m not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances.
“I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning. Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
“Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money, but the money of the American taxpayer. Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
The Right of course have a different spin on the story, however I am sure you will come to realise in your own mind that it’s a half-hearted attempt and unworthy of the bandwidth it might consume. At their pinnacle, according to our dear friend Sissy Willis, is non other than Lucianne.
Comments
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
I for one will salute Gorgeous George’s ‘indefatigability’. Richly deserved humiliation for these pompous over-stuffed second raters who’ve been found out after hiding for far too long behind America’s undue deference to their political leaders.
Great to see the hero of America’s Right, Christopher Hitchens, get a good verbal kicking when he tried to doorstep him on the way into the hearings, with Galloway brushing him aside telling him: “You’re a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay. Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink.”
Great stuff.
Scorpio
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Galloway is a great man. He called the Congress on all of it. He said the hearings were nothing more than a way to smokescreen the fact that 100,000 civilians and 1,600 American soldiers are dead based on a bunch of lies. I especially loved his statement that he met Saddam as many times as Donald Rumsfeld, except Rumsfeld was there to give weapons and intelligence to Saddam.
By the way, I think the change happening in the Middle East was in play before the Iraq war and now owes more to the death of Arafat and the killing of Hariri than any US invasion. I think had the US supported the Shi’a uprising that they had promised to in the 1990s, it is possible the Iraqis could have done it themselves. Instead, the Iraqis were betrayed and left to be slaughtered in the tens of thousands.
[Modified by: Malik (celticview) on May 18, 2005 10:05 AM]
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Well Galloway is now on the RECORD under OATH. Could be a very SMART thing or a very DUMB thing. Time will tell.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Well Galloway is now on the RECORD under OATH. Could be a very SMART thing or a very DUMB thing. Time will tell. [/quote]
Considering he was here as a diplomat, he couldnt face charges anyway. There is no court in the world, outside the US, that would convict him. As a matter of fact, he has gained a sum of money in the UK suing a paper that made such claims.
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Galloway is a great man. He called the Congress on all of it. He said the hearings were nothing more than a way to smokescreen the fact that 100,000 civilians and 1,600 American soldiers are dead based on a bunch of lies. I especially loved his statement that he met Saddam as many times as Donald Rumsfeld, except Rumsfeld was there to give weapons and intelligence to Saddam. [/quote]
Losing respect points by the dozen, Malik. Galloway is nothing but a rancorous goon. From the C-Span footage I saw, he appaeared unable to answer a single question directly, spending most of his time on ad hominem attacks that might play to an emotional crowd, but they don’t stand up in the US. The Senators were cool and collected, Galloway come off as a raving maniac unable to answer a direct question. Sounds a bit like you, Malik.
But I love how you stick to the 100,000 number, it’s from a study whose methods were terribly vague. The final report had anywhere from 8,000 to 150,000 dead. That’s an error range if I ever saw one. A more recent report pegs the number nearer 30,000.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Malik I do not believe Galloway was here as a “Diplomat”. I could be wrong but I don’t think this is the case.
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]As a matter of fact, he has gained a sum of money in the UK suing a paper that made such claims.[/quote]
I suggest you look up the story behind his suit. He won for libel, but the documents were [i]Never proven to be false[/i]. The US committee was not basing its session around those documents (from 2000), but instead from documents in 2001. (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/05/but_can_he_sue_.html, links within)
A few sites that disagree with Mahmood’s assessment:
http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=333
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=540962005
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/05/galloway_final_.html
And a liveblog of the proceedings:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/05/liveblogging_ga.html
I tend to agree with the assessments therein, having taken the time to see most of it myself. Galloway came off as someone on an internet forum. He lacked the decorum required of civilized testimony, evaded questions, and sounded like a fool who was only trying to whip up a circus, not defend himself.
Maybe that’s de rigeur in European parliaments, where the loudest voice wins, but he by no means ‘won’.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
He’s got some problem back home as well.
MP may be tried as traitor
Antony Barnett and Martin Bright
Sunday April 27, 2003
The Observer
George Galloway, the anti-war Labour MP who is suing over allegations he secretly took money from Saddam Hussein, [b]faces the prospect of a criminal prosecution for treachery[/b].
The Observer can reveal that the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering pursuing the Glasgow politician for comments during the Iraq war when he called on British troops not to fight.
In an interview with Abu Dhabi TV during the Iraq conflict, Galloway said: ‘The best thing British troops can do is to refuse to obey illegal orders.’ Lawyers for service personnel claim his call for soldiers to dis obey what he called ‘illegal orders’ amount to a breach of the Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934. The maximum penalty is two years in jail.
The relevant part of the Act is Section 1, which states: ‘If any person maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce any member of His Majesty’s forces from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty, he shall be guilty of an offence.’ Under the terms of the Act, the word ‘maliciously’ means wilfully and intentionally.
Galloway dismissed attempts to prosecute him, but said: ‘I hope to have chiselled on my gravestone: “He incited them to disaffect.”‘
The lawyer spearheading the action is Justin Hugheston-Roberts, chairman of Forces Law, a nationwide group of 22 law firms which acts for service personnel and their families.
Galloway’s calls for British troops to disobey orders came during the TV interview in which he described Tony Blair and George Bush as ‘wolves’ for embarking on military action.
After Galloway made the comments on Abu Dhabi TV, Hugheston-Roberts wrote to the DPP asking him to prosecute or allow a private prosecution to be brought.
Last week the Crown Prosecution Service wrote to the lawyers requesting more information and details of the comments Galloway made.
Hugheston-Roberts has refused to reveal the identity of his clients, but said they were meeting this week to decide on the best course of action.
Hugheston-Roberts said if the CPS decided not to prosecute but gave consent for a private action, then his clients would be happy to pursue that avenue.
This latest twist comes as The Observer reveals details of a secret trip [b]Galloway[/b] made to Morocco for the British-based Saudi dissident Saad al-Fagih, [b]an Islamic fundamentalist who purchased a satellite phone used by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. [/b]
In February 1996 Galloway flew to Morocco for a secret meeting with the then Crown Prince of Morocco to explore a deal between the Islamic Saudi dissidents in the UK and the Saudi royal family.
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Losing respect points by the dozen, Malik. Galloway is nothing but a rancorous goon. From the C-Span footage I saw, he appaeared unable to answer a single question directly, spending most of his time on ad hominem attacks that might play to an emotional crowd, but they don’t stand up in the US. The Senators were cool and collected, Galloway come off as a raving maniac unable to answer a direct question. Sounds a bit like you, Malik.
But I love how you stick to the 100,000 number, it’s from a study whose methods were terribly vague. The final report had anywhere from 8,000 to 150,000 dead. That’s an error range if I ever saw one. A more recent report pegs the number nearer 30,000.[/quote]
Why not stop calling names and stick to the facts? You seem to be sinking lower by the moment Ethan. I suggest if the US cared about killing civilians, they might consider counting them. I agree with the owner of this blog and others. It is clear Galloway handed them their hat.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Malik I do not believe Galloway was here as a “Diplomat”. I could be wrong but I don’t think this is the case. [/quote]
Galloway was here, as a member of the British parliament, to answer aquisations made about actions he took as a member of the British parliament, hence he has diplomatic immunity. Having said that, what exactly would he stabd charges for? Dont you think if there was any evidence against him it would have been presented? The Senate was made out to be fools.
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]I suggest you look up the story behind his suit. He won for libel, but the documents were Never proven to be false. The US committee was not basing its session around those documents (from 2000), but instead from documents in 2001. (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/05/but_can_he_sue_.html, links within) [/quote]
The paper could not prove its case against Galloway, hence they paid damages. The US senate had no evidence that would have stood in court.
[quote]I tend to agree with the assessments therein, having taken the time to see most of it myself. Galloway came off as someone on an internet forum. He lacked the decorum required of civilized testimony, evaded questions, and sounded like a fool who was only trying to whip up a circus, not defend himself.
Maybe that’s de rigeur in European parliaments, where the loudest voice wins, but he by no means ‘won’. [/quote]
He is a foreign politician, hence is style would certainly seem foreign to you. It is clear that he knew what he was talking about and that the senators present could not add anything to the debate. He won, hands down. It seems your main issue is style, sorry, but the facts have it.
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Why not stop calling names and stick to the facts? [/quote]
Someone should tell Galloway that.
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]The paper could not prove its case against Galloway, hence they paid damages. The US senate had no evidence that would have stood in court. [/quote]
Do you read anything, Malik?
The documents used in the case were never proven wrong.
Also – the Senate certainly had evidence provided by former members of the Iraqi government to support them. You cannot instantly disregard tesimony based on a lame accusation of ‘Oh Abu Ghraib is a torture palace under American rule, so everyone there was tortured.’ A claim which is literally 100% false.
[quote]
He is a foreign politician, hence is style would certainly seem foreign to you. It is clear that he knew what he was talking about and that the senators present could not add anything to the debate. He won, hands down. It seems your main issue is style, sorry, but the facts have it. [/quote]
He answered no questions directly, and he put on a performance that I found terribly unconvincing. If he was not guilty, why did he try to shift blame to everyone else instead of taking a strong line? He trotted out the tired anti-war line and said nothing of substance. Did you -read- the Scotsman? Obviously not. You only read things that agree with your assessment of reality.
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Why not stop calling names and stick to the facts?
Someone should tell Galloway that. [/quote]
I wasnt aware that Galloway was here calling me names. I do think that was you Ethan. Admit it, Galloway handed the US Senate their hat. It would seem the only people who do not think so are the “America Uber Alles” crowd.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Cut the NAZI shit Malik before I hand you your lunch.
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]MALIK:the fact that 100,000 civilians [/quote]
It has already been reported that the “100,000” does not seperate out the fighters from the civilians.
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]MALIK:the fact that 100,000 civilians
It has already been reported that the “100,000” does not seperate out the fighters from the civilians[/quote]
I see only limited relevance in this fact. This is 100,000 people that would still be alive if it were not for an invasion that was based on faulty intelligence and lies. If only 50,000 of those were civilians, does that somehow make it better?
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
How many did Saddam kill Malik? How many?
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]The paper could not prove its case against Galloway, hence they paid damages. The US senate had no evidence that would have stood in court.
Do you read anything, Malik?
The documents used in the case were never proven wrong. [/quote]
They were never proven to be true. It is not up to Gallow to disprove the case against him, it is up to those making the claims to prove their case. I guess I could make wild claims about you, does that mean the burden of proof is on you to refute them? Of course not.
[quote]Also – the Senate certainly had evidence provided by former members of the Iraqi government to support them. You cannot instantly disregard tesimony based on a lame accusation of ‘Oh Abu Ghraib is a torture palace under American rule, so everyone there was tortured.’ A claim which is literally 100% false. [/quote]
Not everyone there was tortured, but a significant section was, but I feel this is besides the point. When you are relying on evidence from people who worked with people like Ahmad Chalaby, their reliability instantly comes into question. Ahmad Chalaby is a convicted swinder, and it is clear he lied to the US government. It would seem to me that if Galloway made millions from such a oil sale it would be pretty easy to prove, yet no one has been able to do so.
[quote]
He is a foreign politician, hence is style would certainly seem foreign to you. It is clear that he knew what he was talking about and that the senators present could not add anything to the debate. He won, hands down. It seems your main issue is style, sorry, but the facts have it.
He answered no questions directly, and he put on a performance that I found terribly unconvincing. If he was not guilty, why did he try to shift blame to everyone else instead of taking a strong line? He trotted out the tired anti-war line and said nothing of substance. Did you -read- the Scotsman? Obviously not. You only read things that agree with your assessment of reality. [/quote]
He stated that he did not do what he was accused of, and that no one could prove that he did. He used this as an opportunity to flame the US Senate, and they fell right into it. If they have any proof, let them bring charges. You are American Ethan, ever heard of the concept “innocent until proven guilty?” I guess that rule is suspended if someone is “anti-American” eh? Game, set, match.
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]How many did Saddam kill Malik? How many?[/quote]
Not nearly as many as have died in Congo the last ten years, some 4 million. Why didnt we invade Congo if this war was about saving people or freeing them? This war only became about freeing people when it was clear as day that all of the other rationalisations used to support the war were either false or lies.
I am all for wars for freeing people, I think they ought to be fought one by one, starting with the situations in which the people are dying the most. When are we going to Congo and Uganda?
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Yes, Galloway puts on a good show. All successful charlatans have mastered the technique.
The show consists mainly of evasions, denials, changing the subject, bombast, and ad hominem counterattacks.
It’s great entertainment, and it fools the fools. Carl Levin was not fooled.
Galloway was under oath. We’ll see where it goes from here.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Yes, Galloway puts on a good show. All successful charlatans have mastered the technique.
The show consists mainly of evasions, denials, changing the subject, bombast, and ad hominem counterattacks.
It’s great entertainment, and it fools the fools. Carl Levin was not fooled.
Galloway was under oath. We’ll see where it goes from here. [/quote]
It will go nowhere. I would like to see Donald Rumsfeld answer questions about his meetings with Saddam Hussein. How many people died from the weapons he agreed to give and sell to Saddam at those meetings? How many people slaughtered with the intelligence he provided Hussein?
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]MALIK: This is 100,000 people that would still be alive if it were not for an invasion that was based on faulty intelligence and lies[/quote]
And you say this with complete confidence that Saddam would have no more Halabjas and no more throwing people into woodchippers, of course.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
The Senate was clear in it’s opening remarks that he was not on trial. It was an investigative hearing from what I understand. From watching Galloway in action, it seems that he either felt like he was on trial or was genuinely concerned about his reputation.
Republican attack dogs can sit down. The oil for food case doesn’t hinge on this man. At worst he is guilty of not investigating the sources of his funding. You can make the argument that any Iraqi showing up with a bundle of cash tied in gold string ought to be scrutinized a little bit more than anyone else, but that ‘s the worst of it. If the senate was all that serious about investigating abuses in the oil for food program it would have sub-peonad Zureikat.
This was a man that felt he was being bullied by the US and gave them a proper tongue-lashing. You can say he didn’t supply any answers, but I don’t think anyone asked him any real questions. They asked a bucnh of questions, the answers to which could have been self-incriminating, except no one knew to what end they were being asked!
And the pinkos can sit down too. Even if everything Galloway said were true, we still don’t have a viable exit strategy from Iraq, or from Social Security or Medicare or the economy.
That said, I can’t wait for the fireworks from the “Oil for Halliburton” investigation.
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]MALIK: This is 100,000 people that would still be alive if it were not for an invasion that was based on faulty intelligence and lies
And you say this with complete confidence that Saddam would have no more Halabjas and no more throwing people into woodchippers, of course. [/quote]
He might well have. I do not know. I am not a teller of futures. What I do know is that the premise of this war was based on false information and lies. What I do know is that there are countries in far worse condition around the world where far more people have died and are dying as we speak. If this was about freeing people or saving them from dying, Iraq would have been about 5th or 6th on the list. Most of the countries ahead are in Africa.
But this war was not above saving people from death, it was not about freeing anyone. Those are belated excuses after the facts proved without a doubt that the basis originally used to justify the war were wrong 100%! If this was about saving people I have missed to calls to continue onto Congo or Uganda. We wont go there even though more people have died in those two countries than in Iraq, including the million or more soldiers killed during the Iran-Iraq war. Save the “freeing the people” excuse to someone who hasnt picked up a newspaper in 20 years.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]And the pinkos can sit down too. Even if everything Galloway said were true, we still don’t have a viable exit strategy from Iraq, or from Social Security or Medicare or the economy.
That said, I can’t wait for the fireworks from the “Oil for Halliburton” investigation. [/quote]
I am neither Republican nor a pinko, but what you said is spot on! On the US political scene I like to describe myself as a conservative with a humanitarian foreign policy outlook. As an American I want to know what happened to billions of my tax money sent to Iraq that has now disappeared. Cant blame the UN for this one boys!
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]I think the US must come around and join entirely all of the international groups, including the international criminal court. [/quote]
The ICC has no teeth. You’ll find that even places like France have provisions that protect their own nationals from prosecution – since the court is funded by certain countries, it also biases the court.
[quote]As it is I find the UN is completely in the control of several large nations to the detriment of the rest. [/quote]
Expanding the security council is a good idea. I think that Japan and India should definitely be added.
[quote]I would remove the veto that single nations can cast on the security council and make it a straight democractic vote. There are a lot of things that would make the situation better.[/quote]
But not a straight democratic vote. Tuvalu’s vote (representing less than 0.005% of everyone on the planet) cannot be equal to China, with nearly 20%, or India, who also has nearly 20%. A straight democratic vote would also bias the UN in favor of many smaller ideologically linked nations rather than a few much larger nations. I can certainly see many many anti-Israel / anti-America resolutions being passed just on the basis of there being many Muslim nations – though their total population is less than that of China. Do you really want countries ruled by dictators to have singular votes? That’s giving a UN vote to -one person-.
The UN has many problems that can be ironed out, but there was a reason why straight democracy was not considered seriously when the UN was developed. Half a minute of thought can show the problems inherent in that idea, or even proportional democracy. The current setup is far more useful.
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Quote :
I think the US must come around and join entirely all of the international groups, including the international criminal court.
The ICC has no teeth. You’ll find that even places like France have provisions that protect their own nationals from prosecution – since the court is funded by certain countries, it also biases the court. [/quote]
Indeed, it should be changed. ALL countries should be held accountable to international laws, as should their citizens.
[quote]
As it is I find the UN is completely in the control of several large nations to the detriment of the rest.
Expanding the security council is a good idea. I think that Japan and India should definitely be added. [/quote]
Sure, I agree.
[quote]
I would remove the veto that single nations can cast on the security council and make it a straight democractic vote. There are a lot of things that would make the situation better.
But not a straight democratic vote. Tuvalu’s vote (representing less than 0.005% of everyone on the planet) cannot be equal to China, with nearly 20%, or India, who also has nearly 20%. A straight democratic vote would also bias the UN in favor of many smaller ideologically linked nations rather than a few much larger nations. I can certainly see many many anti-Israel / anti-America resolutions being passed just on the basis of there being many Muslim nations – though their total population is less than that of China. Do you really want countries ruled by dictators to have singular votes? That’s giving a UN vote to -one person-. [/quote]
I see your point. It would take some thinking to figure out a proper method. Maybe a weighted vote based on population? That would favour Africa, China and the Indian sub-continent. How about a weighted majority? 2/3rds? Problem there is Ethan, without a veto, the vast majority of resolutions aimed at Israel and the USA would pass with a 2/3rds majority.
How about an electoral type system where the amount of votes is based on population? Just like it is in the US elections.
[quote]The UN has many problems that can be ironed out, but there was a reason why straight democracy was not considered seriously when the UN was developed. Half a minute of thought can show the problems inherent in that idea, or even proportional democracy. The current setup is far more useful. [/quote] I find it decidedly unfair that a handful of nations, almost all European nations, can block the will of the entire rest of the world. The veto must be changed. I would even support a weighted vote option in the security council. The current set up allows the larger western nations to sometimes literally get away with murder.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Malik why do you think the U.N. should exist for another decade and what would you do to improve it?
Personally I don’t blame the U.N. for the problems (a long list) in Iraq, but I often wonder what they are doing. Saddam was a butcher and the only thing the U.N. did about it was send him a letter. A letter and “sanctions” which were easily bypassed and only hurt the people of Iraq.
-Mike
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]ETHAN: The UN has many problems that can be ironed out, [/quote]
The biggest being that dictators are allowed representation. All abusive governments should have observer status only, until they change their ways.
Aliandra
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]ETHAN: The UN has many problems that can be ironed out,
The biggest being that dictators are allowed representation. All abusive governments should have observer status only, until they change their ways.
Aliandra [/quote]
And who would decide who is a dictator and who isnt? What about unequal democracies like Lebanon(has guaranteed seats to religious groups, not based on population), do they count? Would the UN vote as to who is allowed and isnt? What about monarchies? The Queen of England can, technically, block laws and abolish parliament. Do they count? What if they are one of “our dictators?”
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]I find it decidedly unfair that a handful of nations, almost all European nations, can block the will of the entire rest of the world. The veto must be changed. I would even support a weighted vote option in the security council. The current set up allows the larger western nations to sometimes literally get away with murder.[/quote]
On the other hand, if the vote was proportional, do you think that it could be possible that we could face a cultural hostage crisis? China, with it’s massive population could end up deciding what was best for places like Andorra or Switzerland, who have a completely different culture and needs. The Arab league officially supports the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, and proffers that to be a replacement of the Universal Declaration, or at least hold equal weight. The Security council didn’t even give that the time of day. In a proportional representation, such a culturally-specific document could be held equal to the -universal- declaration. (i.e. have my cake and eat it too). No, proportional democracy favors places with the highest birthrates (which, oddly enough tends to coincide with places with the highest corruption and dictatorship)
The UN should be acultural – it should be a bastion of non-culture, even, where certain universal rules are applied to everyone equally. But then again, who is to determine these universal rules? Everyone’s viewpoint is based on the religiocultural background, as we can see with the various declarations of human rights in the 20th century. What works for the US won’t work for Western Europe, and what works in Western Europe will not work in Saudi, Yemen, Iran, or Egypt. What works there isn’t right for Thailand and Cambodia, and those solutions would fail miserably in Japan, whose ideas would not work in America.
Does this mean that I am a true relatavist? No. There are some solutions that are better than others! But not everyone will agree with me, even if shown to be wrong.
i.e.
Me: Women’s driving is Illegal = bad. Free market competition = good. National Socialism = Bad. Wholly unregulated Capitalism = bad. Freedom of expression = good.
Someone else: You’re wrong! Women driving is illegal = good! Nationalized economies = good! Fascism = good! Unregulated powers of government = good! Freedom of expression = good, as long as it conforms to what I want. If it doesn’t = bad!
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
“Posted by: Mahmood Al-Yousif on May 19, 2005 09:07 AM
I don’t know the full story of oil-for-food, nor the complete background of Galloway but just passing judgement on the proceedings at the Senate, his command of the situation, and my gut feeling that he is innocent of the charges levied against him. Discounting all the other facts surrounding Galloway, he did come through solidly, much to the chagrin of the senators. ”
Galloway mainly argued strawman auguments. His command of the situation is not any more impressive than an actor pretending to be Patton. What information did he actually provide that would cause the Senate to conclude that he did not get money from Saddam via the Oil for Food program? Answer: None. All he did was convince every member of the Senate that he was not innocent of these things said about him. Convincing the majority of the Senate of anything is difficult, but if you manage to do this AND can be caught lying to them, you are dead meat. If there is any body in the US that holds real power it’s the Senate, a super majority of the Senate can end the job of the President. And in matters of foreign affairs it’s the supreme power in regards to US. Galloway has walked into a bear trap. Oh he will be famous as result, he probably has helped sealed the fate of UN in regards to the investigation into the Oil for Food program.
Thank-you Galloway.
The people of Iraq who want justice in regards to the Oil for Food program should thank this dumbass fool known as George Galloway.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Mahmood, I disagree with you that “Galloway rips the Senate a Huge one.”
He was posturing. Attack being the best form of defense and all that. It was my understanding that he wasn’t on trial but assisting the commitee on a number of details they needed to try and clear up or at the very least shed more light on. He used his time in the limelight to reiterate his objections to what he clearly knew was a massive audience. He won his seat in a constituency of London marginally held by Labour, with a high percentage of Asian Muslim voters. He is self promoting and ambitious. He is a maverick with no affiliation to any of the UK’s major parties, becuase none of them will touch him with a bargepole. Why?
I don’t trust him, and the authorities don’t trust him either.
He sees political milage in taking the anti war route. He sees milage in buttering up registered Muslim voters in the UK.We should be wary of the Western politician with no real support at home, who proclaims his support for popular Arab and Muslim themes.
All he is doing now is telling the West “I told you so!”. What use is that to anyone, but George?
He postures and struts like a short, bald man, which he is, high on self satisfaction.
Something about George smells very bad, and when it’s revealed, his proximity to Arabs and Muslims will do us harm.
We need champions in the Western halls of power, but not him.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
I don’t know the full story of oil-for-food, nor the complete background of Galloway but just passing judgement on the proceedings at the Senate, his command of the situation, and my gut feeling that he is innocent of the charges levied against him. Discounting all the other facts surrounding Galloway, he did come through solidly, much to the chagrin of the senators.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Ever heard of the concept of given one their own rope to hang themselves? Galloway may have done just that. Under oath and on the record. John “Ketchup” Kerry comes off as solid too. A solid pompous ass. “W” can’t speak very well but people understand the point he is trying to make.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Ever heard of the concept of given one their own rope to hang themselves? Galloway may have done just that. Under oath and on the record. John “Ketchup” Kerry comes off as solid too. A solid pompous ass. “W” can’t speak very well but people understand the point he is trying to make. [/quote]
Give me a break. Like I have said here before, once you have to start changing names and making up words to make a point, you have clearly lost. “W” can’t get a point across well because his command of the English language is so limited. What he does get across often is not true, as in the case he made for the invasion of Iraq.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]We should be wary of the Western politician with no real support at home, who proclaims his support for popular Arab and Muslim themes[/quote]
Pure rubbish. Are you claiming he has never had any support outside of the Muslim community? As for support for Muslim and Arab themes, it is clear you are no fan of Goethe. I guess maybe he was a secret member of an early al Queda group?
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Malik why do you think the U.N. should exist for another decade and what would you do to improve it?
Personally I don’t blame the U.N. for the problems (a long list) in Iraq, but I often wonder what they are doing. Saddam was a butcher and the only thing the U.N. did about it was send him a letter. A letter and “sanctions” which were easily bypassed and only hurt the people of Iraq.
-Mike [/quote]
I think the UN should exist forever, although in a modified form. You will find much of what I would suggest the US would be entirely against. I think the UN needs to do more to fulfil its intended goal. I think the UN forces should be reformed into a fighting force with teeth that will be able to go into countries and stop the fighting. I think the force should be able to enforce sanctions. I think UN forces should have been sent to stop the fighting in places like Bosnia, Uganda, Congo, Palestine and other places.
I think smaller and less developed areas need to be given more say. I think the US must come around and join entirely all of the international groups, including the international criminal court. As it is I find the UN is completely in the control of several large nations to the detriment of the rest. I would remove the veto that single nations can cast on the security council and make it a straight democractic vote. There are a lot of things that would make the situation better.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]They were never proven to be true. It is not up to Gallow to disprove the case against him, it is up to those making the claims to prove their case. [/quote]
In a Libel trial, it is certainly on the suer to show that the suee was in the wrong. Galloway sued the paper, and therefore the onus was on him to show what they said was wrong. What they -said- was wrong, but the documents were not shown to be right or wrong.
[quote]I guess I could make wild claims about you, does that mean the burden of proof is on you to refute them? Of course not.[/quote]
If I’m suing you, then it’s my job to collect the evidence that proves you libelled me.
[quote]Not everyone there was tortured, but a significant section was,[/quote]
A ‘significant’ section being what percentage, Malik? Last I checked, it was only the group of guards that are currently/were on trial that are accused of misbehavior, and that only happened at a limited part of the facility.
Or are you going to [i]de facto[/i] assume that the US military is guilty of anyone’s claimed wrongs? Nice double standard yet again.
[quote]When you are relying on evidence from people who worked with people like Ahmad Chalaby, their reliability instantly comes into question. Ahmad Chalaby is a convicted swinder, and it is clear he lied to the US government. [/quote]
When you are relying on evidence from people who worked with people like …
Ad hominem. One’s associates does not factor into anything not directly affecting them.
[quote]It would seem to me that if Galloway made millions from such a oil sale it would be pretty easy to prove, yet no one has been able to do so. [/quote]
When many documents regarding money transfers mysteriously dissapear to Jordan, and you have Iraqi higher ups claiming that these things went on, you may not have direct evidence of a crime, but you have evidence indicating a crime took place. That bears research.
But I’m sure you’ll be the first on the bandwagon now that it’s been alleged that Bayoil did some shady dealings under Clinton’s watch because of the American connection.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]I wasnt aware that Galloway was here calling me names.[/quote]
Reading comprehension, Malik. Learn it.
Galloway was spouting insults toward both congressmen and reporters. In no sense of the context was I referring to you. Read my quoted statement again:
[quote]Malik: Why not stop calling names and stick to the facts?
Ethan: Someone should tell Galloway that.[/quote]
It’s called ‘witty repartee’. Galloway (as shown even in Mahmood’s post) was tossing insults. You claim that I was ‘calling names’ and ‘avoiding facts’. I claim that Galloway was tossing insults (which was shown) and ‘avoiding facts
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]This war only became about freeing people when it was clear as day that all of the other rationalisations used to support the war were either false or lies. [/quote]
Raising the bar, Malik? Uganda, Congo? Why hasn’t the UN done anything? Well, besides raping little children in Africa…
Freedom for Iraqis was a theme well before the WMD was even brought into the equation. I suggest you look at presidential speeches re: Iraq from the past 5 years.
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
There wasn’t 50,000 civilians killed by Coalition forces.
The lastest survey of 22,000 indicates 24-29,000 deaths from the war.
100,000 number is a completely false number created to influence the American elections.
The survey completed recently was a comprehensive survey focused on the number of total number of deaths, but on a wide range of issues. It surveyed in all provinces of Iraq and had a weighted number on the Baghdag area. 100,000 number was biased and was not considered to be done for any other purpose other than proganganda, which in this regard did extremely well since you seem to be under the utter delusion that Coalition forces have killed a large amount innocent civilivans.
There is the survey if you wish to not remain just another useful idiot:
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm
Death total is mentioned on the second Analytical Report, somewhere.
“”The survey for the UN Development Programme, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004, questioned more than 21,600 households this time last year. Its findings, released by the Ministry of Planning yesterday, could finally resolve the debate over how many Iraqis were killed in the war that overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.
The 370-page report said that it was 95 per cent confident that the toll during the war and the first year of occupation was 24,000, but could have been between 18,000 and 29,000. About 12 per cent of those were under 18.
The figure is far lower than the 98,000 deaths estimated in The Lancet last October, which said that it had interviewed nearly 1,000 households. But it is far higher than other figures. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1610143,00.html
This is all deaths including Iraqi army when opposed the Coalition and terrorists killed and victims of these terrorists. Of course it’s now a year old and it’s a survey projecting numbers, but it far more accurate than Lancet
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Wow! My sense is that there is a disconnect between ethical standards….Anyone in public office in the US that accepted $600,000 in funds even to a charity who didn’t know where it came from would be considered dishonest or corrupt. Its just an ethical standard pretty much across the board.
A smaller amount would not necessarily raise eyebrows. But that kind of a donation any responsible person would want to know why it was donated. This kind of thing goes on all over the UN. But the UN operates like the diplomats do in their home countries. I used to work professionally outsides the US where bribes were expected. I didn’t do it…but I had a collegue who spent two years trying to get a building permit and wouldn’t pay bribes. After 2 years, he went stark raving mad. True story. I have also worked in the US and NEVER EVER was there even the hint of that kind of thing.
Its a matter of how common the practice is…and how it is thought of.
A culture of corruption and duplicity threatens Iraq more than than the insurgents. And it retards investment in the Middle East.
thinker
Chief Shitting Bull
You’re talking about this report which merely details allegations. I’m really not interested in “He said, she said” or in subscribing to your expedited worldview of convenience, where ANYONE’s opinion at any time is acceptable as long as it lines up with this week’s memos from the Orwellian Thought Industrial Complex.
As far as my bullshit detector goes, it’s been busted ever since it couldn’t decide between Blog Hogs Steve the Propoganda Monkey and Malik the Broken Record Baboon, for most insipid drivel.
[Modified by: Desert Island Boy (johnc) on May 20, 2005 09:23 AM]
Re(7): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote}MALIK: Like one commenter said, if the truth about the rape of men and women at Abu Ghraib ever gets out the Middle East will explode. [/quote]
If they aren’t exploding at their own governments “screwing” them, they are not going to explode over rape at Abu Graib.
Aliandra
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]That is a difference between British and American libel laws. In America, you do not need to give warning of printing true things, even if damaging. In Britain, you do, no matter how true. [/quote]
What on earth are you talking about? This is absolute rubbish. In Britain you have to be able to prove that “true” things are actually true, if challenged to do so by the person accused. If a newspaper can back up its allegations with hard evidence, then it will win the case; if it cannot, then it will lose it. The Telegraph and Christian Science Monitor lost to Galloway because the documents they based their stories upon were fakes. This doesn ‘t necessarily mean that Galloway is innocent – the predominant view in the UK is that he is a shady character, to say the least – but it does mean that the press needs concrete evidence before it can expose, which is fair enough even though few people would have any sympathy for Galloway himself.
Newspapers here do not have to “give warning”, which is why we are home to some of the most notorious paparazzi in the world.
Re(8): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]MALIK: Like one commenter said, if the truth about the rape of men and women at Abu Ghraib ever gets out the Middle East will explode.
If they aren’t exploding at their own governments “screwing” them, they are not going to explode over rape at Abu Graib.
Aliandra
[/quote]
Some are Aliandra, seen the reports from Uzbekistan recently? Now, your comments on why the US isn’t investigating these allegations properly, and why American media isnt really talking about it?
Re: Chief Shitting Bull
Well slap me down for lookin’ at my sister! The [b]BLOG HOG[/b] term has been DROPPED by DIB!
At least Steve’s “propoganda” can give one pause for thought at times while Malik’s Broken Record Baboon chants of the same SHIT over and OVER and OVER again during working hours is plain insipid mindless drivel of the highest degree.
Way to go DIB!
Re(7): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]It is far from dumb. If you buy the line that we went into Iraq to free the people of Iraq from murder and a dictator, doesnt it then stand to reason that we should have FIRST saved the people in the most dangerous country in the world? [/quote]
No, it doesn’t stand to reason because the circumstances in Iraq and Congo are not even similar, nevermind identical. The conflict in DR Congo is perpetuated by civil war and by the direct military involvement of several other African countries – namely, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Angola. US military action there could very easily result in an escalation of the conflict across the entire region, and a thoroughly unwinnable war on every level. Some interventions simply are not practical, or even logistically feasible.
Re(8): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Yes but not in the WORLD ACCORDING to MALIK.
He wants the US to SOLVE every problem, everywhere and the he wants to level blame at the US afterwards. Damned if we do damned if we don’t. No matter what with Malik the US is to blame. The US is the GREAT SATAN to him. He can’t see past the current headline in the NYT or the LA Times.
Re(9): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Yes but not in the WORLD ACCORDING to MALIK.
He wants the US to SOLVE every problem, everywhere and the he wants to level blame at the US afterwards. Damned if we do damned if we don’t. No matter what with Malik the US is to blame. The US is the GREAT SATAN to him. He can’t see past the current headline in the NYT or the LA Times. [/quote]
Complete nonsense and oversimplification. I am talking about 50 years of US policy. Current issues just add to the woe. As to America being the great Satan, far from it. My sole issue with the US is really its foreign policy. As a matter of fact, I can safely say there is not a “Muslim” country in the world that would allow me to say what I do, or to practice my religion in the absolute freedom that I have here. Like many Muslims I think that America, in its domestic policies, is the most “Muslim” country in the world. I only wish our foreign policies were in line with our domestic policy. Sadly, this is not the case.
Everything is not black and white. I can love America yet hate its foreign policy.
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Malik: The paper could not prove its case against Galloway, hence they paid damages.[/quote]
False. The truth of the charges were never an issue. The British libel case turned on the issue of whether the paper gave Galloway adequate notice of the charges to be able to respond to them. The court found that they did not and found in favor of Galloway. The court was uninterested in whether he took Saddam’s money or not.
That is a difference between British and American libel laws. In America, you do not need to give warning of printing true things, even if damaging. In Britain, you do, no matter how true.
Galloway and his stooges on the left, like you, have used the confusion over this court case to dishonestly argue that the British court found the charges false, that they found Galloway innocent of bribery, that he was vindicated. Nothing of the sort happenned.
That’s how slimy lefties like Galloway operate, on deception, on lies, on half truths, on popular misconceptions. He emits a cloud of rhetoric, something like ink squirted by an octopus, to evade the substance of the charge against him.
Steve
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Malik: I would like to see Donald Rumsfeld answer questions about his meetings with Saddam Hussein. How many people died from the weapons he agreed to give and sell to Saddam at those meetings? How many people slaughtered with the intelligence he provided Hussein? [/quote]
And that’s Galloway’s game as well, to change the subject, to shift the topic to accusations against America rather than answer questions about Saddam’s money.
Hopefully, a lot of people died from the weapons and intelligence we gave Iraq and Iran. That was the point. Iran and Iraq were evil nations, fond of terrorism. The idea of providing support to each other in their insane war was for them to waste themselves fighting each other rather than projecting their belligerence elsewhere. It worked. Both Iran and Iraq were exhausted for over a decade, too exhausted to make trouble elsewhere in the region and the world. If left alone, perhaps both Iran and Iraq would have been able to pour their resources into atom bomb programs. They could both be nuclear powers now. How do you think that would go?
For America, it is something like having Soviet Union and Nazi Germany battle it out. All those lives and resources the two different brands of socialism waste fighting each other are lives and resources not used to fight America. Stoking Iraq and Iran’s war effort against each other was good for America, for the Middle East, and for the world.
Steve
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Ah I didn’t know that (the libel laws and the impact on this particular case), thanks for clearing it up.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]DIB: At worst he is guilty of not investigating the sources of his funding. [/quote]
DIB, please put on your bullshit detector and point it at Galloway, who told Saddam when first they met, “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.” Galloway was exceptional in his unstinting support of Saddam. Now, DIB, sit back and think about that. Who else heaped such praise on Saddam who was not on his payroll or in fear of him? This is Baghdad Bob stuff. Even the hard Left dare not mention Saddam’s name for fear of tarnishing their anti-war protests. Galloway, by contrast, did not just mention Saddam’s name, he exalted it.
DIB, Saddam paid Gallowaw twenty million bucks. TWENTY MILLION SMACKEROOS. Now, DIB, a million bucks in hundred dollar bills weighs sixty pounds, I read. You need at least two suitcases to hold them. Twenty million bucks is 1,200 pounds of hundreds. If somebody dumped more than half a ton of hundreds on your doorstep, forty suitcases worth, do you think you would not know where it came from? Do you think it is possible that you could overlook it?
Sheesh,
Steve
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
That’s a very twisted thought process that you have Steve. Why would you wish death upon ANY nation regardless of ideology?
I just cannot reconcile your thoughts on this one. Is it just to defend your precious America that you wouldn’t mind the deaths of hundreds of thousands? Even when both countries concerned have no way – even if they rhetorically propse to – of killing Americans in their own land?
Sick.
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Mahmood,
You are placing greater weight on aggressive demagoguery than on facts and reason.
Steve
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Mahmood: That’s a very twisted thought process that you have Steve. Why would you wish death upon ANY nation regardless of ideology? [/quote]
On the contrary, it is perfectly moral to wish death on countries with hateful ideologies, like Nazi Germany, for example.
You might recall the times. Iran had just violently turned against America, having held our citizens hostages for over a year. It was assassinating its political rivals in America. It was indisputably an enemy of the US. Saddam’s Iraq was nobody’s sweetheart either. They were both vile countries which were intent on doing evil. The question was where would that evil occur and in what form. If we can help channel their evil energies against each other, that is the best case for which you can hope.
[quote]Mahmood: I just cannot reconcile your thoughts on this one. Is it just to defend your precious America that you wouldn’t mind the deaths of hundreds of thousands? Even when both countries concerned have no way – even if they rhetorically propse to – of killing Americans in their own land? [/quote]
America did not start the Iran-Iraq war, Mahmood. Both sides are at fault. If Saddam’s army was not reduced by war with Iraq, do you think he would not have used it elsewhere? If Iran’s army was not reduced, do you think Iran would not have sought to extend its domain throughout the Gulf?
My preference is that the whole Middle East be a liberal democracy with free speech and free markets, nations with whom we could freely trade and visit. However, if that’s not possible, if there are Middle Eastern countries which want to gain by belligerence and wars of conquest, then the best option is that they turn on each other and reduce each other. If Iraq must attack, then it’s better that it attack Iran rather than Turkey or Kuwait. I see it as a good thing that Iran and Iraq’s resort to war is made as painful as possible. If you have two rabid dogs running around the neighborhood, it’s better if they are biting each other than biting your friends.
However, if Iran and Iraq had decided to resolve their differences peacefully, to concentrate on building their countries rather than tearing them down, to build products and provide services rather than weapons, to get rich rather than impoverish themselves in a protracted war, then the US could have done a lot to help them along that higher road.
Steve
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Malik,
The estimate of 100,000 Iraqi dead is an estimate by the British medical journal, the Lancet, based on a rather shaky statistical study they did in Iraq. They did not count the deaths, they estimated them based on samples of the population, sampling which was skewed by the security conditions and the researchers own biases. What their study actually said was this: “We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.”
What that means in human being language is the Lancet was 95% confident that the number of deaths in Iraq were somewhere between 8,000 to 194,000. They randomly picked 98,000 as a number about halfway through the range. This is pretty sloppy statistics but then its not hard to fool the Left with numbers. They’re not very good at arithmetic anyway.
To place this in perspective, this is like the crack Lancet statisticians sampling the voters in the US and saying that John Kerry got somewhere between 4% and 97% of the vote in the last election. Since the difference between those extremes is 50.5%, then Kerry won.
Here is the Slate article which debunks the 100,000 figure: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887
Slate is a liberal online magazine, by the way. Basically, the study is flawed due to bad assumptions made by the team. My suspicion is that these assumptions were cooked to produce a big number of casualties to pursue a political agenda.
As the Slate article mentions, another group called the Iraq Body Count has made another estimate based on counting documented deaths. It estimates that from 14,181 to 16,312 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war. That is probably a low estimate as many deaths were probably not documented. Perhaps it is double that, about 30,000. It is worth noting at this point that Iraqi groups sifting through the papers in abandoned Baathist headquarters estimate that Saddam would have executed 70,000 Iraqis in the year after the US invasion.
So you can take your choice, an estimate based on statistical guesswork, slight of hand, and bias or an estimate based on actually counting the dead. Of course, the Left prefers the highest number it can get because it is not interested in the truth but rather in making propaganda points against the United States.
As British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The 100,000 dead statistic is such a lie told by the Anti-Americans, wrapped in the pseudo-scientific statistics, to awe the ignorant and fool the gullible.
Steve
Re(9): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Gosh, let me guess, Malik. America is responsible for the massacre in Uzbekistan, too, huh? Just like we were responsible for Red China persecuting Muslims, right?
What a joke your endless accusations of American wrongdoing are, but perfectly in line with the Muslim perception of America as the source of all evil.
Steve
Re(7): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Malik: Not true at all Steve. I hate the things you say about Islam, Arabs, Saudis, you name it, but I do not hate you. Far from it I wish Hediya for you Steve. I hate bigotry, yet I do not hate the bigotted. [/quote]
That was so touching it brought a tear to my eye. Are these roses I just got from you?
In the same spirit of reciprocity, I’d like to say that while I hate lying and treason, I don’t hate you, Malik. I hope that makes you feel better.
Steve
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Anon: What on earth are you talking about? This is absolute rubbish. In Britain you have to be able to prove that “true” things are actually true, if challenged to do so by the person accused. If a newspaper can back up its allegations with hard evidence, then it will win the case; if it cannot, then it will lose it. The Telegraph and Christian Science Monitor lost to Galloway because the documents they based their stories upon were fakes. [/quote]
You’re wrong. You haven’t done your homework on this case and don’t know what you’re talking about. Here is a helpful link to the BBC story on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm
Mr Justice Eady, the British judge who made the ruling for Galloway did so because: “[Mr Galloway] did not therefore have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published.”
Note that the judge does not mention the truth of the accusations as a factor in his decision.
You are correct in that one set of incriminating documents was proven to be fakes. Others were not fakes. However, it did not matter either way in this case. Galloway won because he was not given adequate time to respond to their revelation in the media, not because he was innocent of taking blood money from Saddam. That issue is yet to be tried.
Steve
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Wow….51 comments is a real achievement BUT…why Mahmood do you support the war???
Why can’t the Aran nations take responsibility to organise something?
(I’m putting my flak jacket on…)
The Johnster
Re(8): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]That was so touching it brought a tear to my eye. Are these roses I just got from you?
In the same spirit of reciprocity, I’d like to say that while I hate lying and treason, I don’t hate you, Malik. I hope that makes you feel better.
Steve [/quote]
I guess that is what I get. What exactly have I done that is treason? Because I complain about American policies? That is treason?
Re(1): Chief Shitting Bull
Hmmm. It looks like the Propaganda Monkey is beating the Broken Record Baboon, then. I can live with that.
Steve
Re(10): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Gosh, let me guess, Malik. America is responsible for the massacre in Uzbekistan, too, huh? Just like we were responsible for Red China persecuting Muslims, right?
What a joke your endless accusations of American wrongdoing are, but perfectly in line with the Muslim perception of America as the source of all evil.
Steve [/quote]
I never claimed that America is responsible for what has happened in Uzbekistan. I can give you several facts. The dictator of Uzbekistan is an American “ally.” We have given him millions of dollars in aid, and we have a US base in his country. Since the murder of hundreds of protesters all we have done is call for restraint and there is no talk of stopping aid to this country. We are not responsible for what they do, we are responsible for what WE do. Considering the nature of this government I think it is irresponsible of us to give any further money to this man.
[b]”An ‘Anti-Terror’ Tyrant[/b]
President Islam A. Karimov of Uzbekistan has wrapped himself in the flag of anti-terrorism and done well by it: hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid, a U.S. military base that demonstrates the close ties between Tashkent and Washington, and bland statements from the United States about his country’s appalling human rights record.
But the killing of civilian demonstrators by government forces in an eastern Uzbekistan city last week demands a public outcry from the U.S. That may not be in Karimov’s interest, but so what? A dictatorship that allows no meaningful political opposition fails to serve the broader interests of the country or its friends. It drives support toward the only groups able to organize against the government: Islamic fundamentalists.”
[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-uzbek20may20,0,6121634.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials[/url]
Re(9): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
You’re not going to ask for the roses back, are you?
Steve
Re(10): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]You’re not going to ask for the roses back, are you?
Steve [/quote]
Not at all, keep the warda. How about just answering my question? You have accused me of treason. Seeing that you know nothing about me save what I have posted, what have I done that amounts to treason? It would seem that all I have done is to practice freedom of speech. Is that treason now? To some in the USA it is.
Re(11): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Malik
You called me a bigot and I returned the compliment. Now you are upset that anyone would insult you. You would avoid much well deserved ridicule if you did not prompt it. It appears that you reject the idea of turnabout being fair play. Tell us all, Malik, why you feel so free to insult others but are astounded when it bounces back on you.
Steve
Re(12): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Malik
You called me a bigot and I returned the compliment. Now you are upset that anyone would insult you. You would avoid much well deserved ridicule if you did not prompt it. It appears that you reject the idea of turnabout being fair play. Tell us all, Malik, why you feel so free to insult others but are astounded when it bounces back on you.
Steve [/quote]
That is fine. And it would be rather easy to pull up posts that mark you as a bigot. You have been called out on it on this forum before, not just by myself. You know, the rants against Muslims and Saudis, whomever. I have no problem with turn around if you can tell me what you base your term on. I base mine on your words and ideas here.
I would be interested in exactly what do you think I have done that classifies me as a traitor. I called you a bigot because I think, based on your words, that you are bigotted towards certain groups of people. I would like to know what makes you think that I am a traitor, or were you just tossing out this term for the fun of it?
Fair play is fine, please explain what I have done that warrants the term “traitor.” I have explained how I came the idea that you are a bigot. Tell me what makes me a traitor. Have I actively worked against my own government? Have I provided aid and comfort for the enemy? It is clear that all you know of me is my words, are you saying that my freedom of speech can make me a traitor? I am really interested in knowing on what grounds I am a traitor. I am not mad in the least, I want to get down to the bottom of your reasoning, if there is any.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Yes, I get it. Since Uzbekistan allowed us to have air bases there, we are now responsible for everything Uzbekistan does. Right? Because all wrong everywhere in the world is always due to America, The Great Satan, right, Malik?
Steve
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Of course it is, Steve.
We’re not an Islamic state. Therefore we shouldn’t be powerful. Allah doesn’t support the infidels. Therefore there’s something wrong!
Or perhaps Islam is itself wrong, and God supports Jeffersonian Deism 😛 Wow. Wouldn’t that be the headline of the century – just don’t let Newsweek have it.
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Steve, my friend, how can hate be a moral thing to feel and propogate? Hate will only distroy you my friend. Think happy thoughts.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Malik…Your ideas would require a single currency, taxation, and monetary system…It won’t happen in the next 100 years although some changes will take place.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
woodchippers anony mous you still beleive this bullshit from cnn ? god whats happening to education these days
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Ethan buddy have you ever read a book about what islam is really about, probably not. There is NO islamic state in existence at the moment not saudi not afghanistan maybe if you read books about islamic shariah and what makes an islamic state you would realise just because muslims happen to live in a country doesnt make it an islamic country i mean look at america for example not exactly practising and preaching the religion of there ‘leader’.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Not nearly as many as have died in Congo the last ten years, some 4 million. Why didnt we invade Congo if this war was about saving people or freeing them? [/quote]
This is a dumb line of argument because it relies upon the proposition that if the US and its allies don’t solve every problem in the world simultaneously and in exactly the same way then we should do nothing about any of them. If you really care about the war in Congo, instead of just using the suffering there to score rhetorical points, then perhaps you could help lobby the useless, feeble UN to get off its overfunded backside and sort it out – and hopefully rather more effectively than it did Rwanda, where it instructed its troops not to intervene even as men, women and children were chopped to pieces right before the soldiers’ eyes.
Re(6): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]This is a dumb line of argument because it relies upon the proposition that if the US and its allies don’t solve every problem in the world simultaneously and in exactly the same way then we should do nothing about any of them.[/quote]
It is far from dumb. If you buy the line that we went into Iraq to free the people of Iraq from murder and a dictator, doesnt it then stand to reason that we should have FIRST saved the people in the most dangerous country in the world? If not, then it is clear that “freeing and saving people” was not the priority. If it was, then we would have gone into the country where they people were most at risk. Since we did not, it is clear there was other motivation at work.
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Pure rubbish. Are you claiming he has never had any support outside of the Muslim community?[/quote]
Galloway is not highly thought of in the UK, which is precisely why he chose a constituency with a very large Muslim population in which to stand for Parliament. Even there, he only won by a narrow majority and following an extremely nasty campaign which made much of the fact that his opponent, Oona King, is half Jewish. King was pelted with eggs during the campaign, as were a group of Jews attending a memorial service in the area. A 69 year old Jewish man was beaten up so badly that he had to go to hospital. Obviously Galloway denied any connection with these actions but the fact remains that it was his supporters who were responsible for them.
Galloway is the sole MP for his Respect Coalition Party. He has no political powerbase at Westminster. The general British attitude towards him is that he is a sinister clown, a buffoon who can be entertaining occasionally. Few people here like or admire him. His fawning remarks to Saddam, his frequently expressed admiration for Stalin, the stench of corruption that has hung around him for years, his demagogic style, and his self-evident extreme egoism, all make him a deeply unpopular figure and most people regard as someone whose downfall will come sooner or later.
Now, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t someone make goods points nor that it isn’t very entertaining to watch this streetfighter lay into Washington suits who clearly did not have a clue how to deal with him. But if you think that he’s a popular or influential figure here outside the tiny minority of his own followers, you are very much mistaken. He isn’t.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]The people of Iraq who want justice in regards to the Oil for Food program should thank this dumbass fool known as George Galloway[/quote]
I will not presume to speak for the Iraqi people as you have done. But as an American I want to know where 8 BILLION of my tax dollars have disappeared to in the last couple of years. This scandal, in amount and depth, far dwarfs the food for oil scandal. When is the Senate going to call hearings into this and bring people to book?
I have no problem with giving this money to help Iraqis, I have a major problem with it going to KBR and other American super corporations who are already making a killing. The plain fact is, we dont know where it went. 8 billion, and we have no clue.
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]DIB, please put on your bullshit detector and point it at Galloway, who told Saddam when first they met, “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.” [/quote]
As opposed to Donald Rumsfeld who only said “Sir, how much arms and cash do you want, and what intelligence can we provide you to help you slaughter hundreds of thousands people? We support you in your war of aggression against the Iranians.”
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Malik as a TAXPAYER I want to know what you do with my TAX dollars since you claim to work for the US Governement yet you seem to do little from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm est but post on blogs.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Mahmood,
You can’t love something without hating its opposite. You can’t love your family without hating their deaths. You can’t love freedom without hating slavery. And so on.
But I will take your good advice to think happy thoughts this weekend. You have a point that I focus on the evil side of things far too much. That can’t be good for your mental health.
Steve
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Inventing a quote, changing the topic, dodging the issue. A classic Malik response.
Yawn,
Steve
Re(6): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Raising the bar, Malik? Uganda, Congo? Why hasn’t the UN done anything? Well, besides raping little children in Africa…
Freedom for Iraqis was a theme well before the WMD was even brought into the equation. I suggest you look at presidential speeches re: Iraq from the past 5 years. [/quote]
The war in Iraq was never sold to the Americans as a mission to free the Iraqi people. You know as well as I do that Americans never would have supported it based on such a line. Rape in Congo, rape in abu Ghraib, at least the UN has been open about it. The Americans classified the portion of the Taguba report that dealt with the rape issue, although Congressmen have been prevy to it. Why have no charges been pressed against the instances of rape at Abu Ghraib, why have they barely been discussed? Why arent we hearing about this? Like one commenter said, if the truth about the rape of men and women at Abu Ghraib ever gets out the Middle East will explode.
“SAN DIEGO – An Iraqi-born Swede’s allegations of rape, sexual humiliation and abuse in Abu Ghraib prison were added Thursday to an ongoing lawsuit in San Diego against U.S. defense contractors.
The man, identified only by his last name, Saleh, says during his three months in captivity last fall he saw guards fire into a crowd of inmates, killing five. He says he also witnessed the rape of two young male detainees by one of his captors, said his lawyer, Shereef Akeel.”
[url]http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/9059557.htm?1c[/url]
“Captured in photographs now infamous for portraying naked, hooded prisoners and smiling guards, the behavior is believed to be one of the most damning acts toward Iraqi civilians by coalition forces. Other acts of violence toward the prisoners include physical abuse and still unproved allegations of rape and murder.”
[url]http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11744[/url]
“Major General Antonio Taquba found that at least one US military policemen had raped a female inmate inside Abu Ghraib; a letter smuggled out of the prison by a woman known only as “Noor”, containing allegations of rape, was found to be entirely accurate. Other witnesses interviewed by the Guardian have said that US guards “repeatedly” raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl who was held in the block last year. They also said that guards made several of the women inmates parade naked in front of male prisoners.”
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308346,00.html[/url]
“Information has exploded onto our screens and in all the media about the sexual humiliation, torture and murder of prisoners in Iraq and the murder of civilians, including children, in the streets and in their own homes. Questions are also being raised about Afghanistan. Yet while the rape of men (and increasingly boys) is beginning to be acknowledged, the rape of women and girls was initially dismissed as “a soldier had sex with a woman prisoner.â€? Greater truth is now emerging.
Iraqi women have told us that women are in prison to be interrogated and tortured to get information on male relatives. For women, torture almost always begins with the torture of rape, often gang rape. A US reporter said that “Last month women prisoners at Abu Ghraib smuggled out leaflets claiming they’d been raped.� (Anne Garrels, National Public Radio, 4 May 2004) A woman from Baghdad University working for Amnesty International has described her own sexual abuse at a check point and what she knows from others. “He pointed the laser sight directly in the middle of my chest, then he pointed to his penis. He told me, ‘Come here, bitch, I’m going to f***(curse word blocke by Malik) you.’ . . . According to Prof. Huda Shaker several women in Abu Ghraib jail were sexually abused, including one who was raped by an American military policeman and became pregnant.� (London Guardian 12 May) Other sources have confirmed this.
An Iraqi lawyer said that her client, an ex-Abu Ghraib prisoner, “fainted before providing further details of being raped and knifed by U.S. soldiers. Another lawyer representing five former detainees described to their lawyers having been beaten. But they did not say they had been raped. “They are very ashamed.” “They say, ‘We can’t tell you. We have families. We cannot speak about what happened.’ ” (Los Angeles Times, 12 May 2004) “A female colleague of mine was arrested and taken [to Abu Ghraib]. When I asked her after she was released what happened there she started crying. It is very difficult to talk about rape. But I think it happened.â€? Prof. Huda said the woman made pregnant as a result of rape by a US soldier has now disappeared and may have been killed. “When I went to her house . . . the neighbours said she and her family had moved away.â€? (London Guardian 10 May 2004).
We attach photos which have been sent to us of women being raped by soldiers, which have already appeared on some websites. We have disguised the women’s identity and will not circulate any photo where women are identifiable. While we cannot verify the authenticity of these photos, it is clear from all the other information now circulating that these or similar rapes have taken place. We have heard that thousands of photos like these have circulated like baseball cards among the troops and even used as computer screensavers. The Pentagon is quoted as saying that it knows of at least two CDs of photos containing several hundred images of US troops “abusingâ€? prisoners, including “beating an Iraqi inmate to the point of unconsciousness, having sex with a female prisoner, and gloating over a corpse.â€? (London Guardian 10 May 2004). ”
[url]http://www.womenagainstrape.net/Latest%20News/WomenLegislators.htm[/url]
”
Soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Brigade – the same military unit whose troops fired on the car carrying the freed Italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena – were under investigation last year for raping Iraqi women, US army documents reveal.
Four soldiers were alleged to have raped the two women while on guard duty in a Baghdad shopping precinct. A US army investigator interviewed several soldiers from the military unit, the 1-15th battalion of the 3rd Infantry Brigade – but did not locate or interview the Iraqi women involved – before shutting down the inquiry for lack of evidence.
Transcripts of the investigation, obtained by the Guardian from the American Civil Liberties Union, show only the most cursory attempts by the investigator to establish whether the women were raped…..
The allegations of rape were contained in 1,200 pages of documents released yesterday by the ACLU. Together, the documents cover investigations into 13 cases of suspected abuse. However, no action was taken against any soldier as a result.
The documents also provide further evidence that US troops have destroyed evidence of abuse, in order to avoid a repetition of last year’s Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.”
[url]http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0308-03.htm[/url]
Why arent we doing an open and exhaustive investigation of these numerous reports? Why? Because I think US authorities fear the backlash, even with our allies in Iraq, if they are proven true.
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Inventing a quote, changing the topic, dodging the issue. A classic Malik response.
Yawn,
Steve [/quote]
Dont you want to know what was said between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein in the two times they met? I certainly do! Why was the US meeting and giving arms and cash to a mass murderer? Maybe because he was killing the people we felt at the time needed to be killed?
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Same tired ole verbal spew from you Malik. Talk about beating a dead hourse. Can’t you come up with something new or is this all you can conjour up? Don’t you have a job that requires you doing something besides blog posting all day from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm?
Re(6): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Mahmood,
You can’t love something without hating its opposite. You can’t love your family without hating their deaths. You can’t love freedom without hating slavery. And so on.
But I will take your good advice to think happy thoughts this weekend. You have a point that I focus on the evil side of things far too much. That can’t be good for your mental health.
Steve [/quote]
Not true at all Steve. I hate the things you say about Islam, Arabs, Saudis, you name it, but I do not hate you. Far from it I wish Hediya for you Steve. I hate bigotry, yet I do not hate the bigotted. I hate what Ethan says about Islam. I love my religion, yet I do not hate Ethan at all. I love Islam, but do not hate those who spread lies and invective against Islam. My religion and my conscience tells me to wish only the best for them.
There most certain [b]CAN[/b] be love [i]without [/i]hate, Thank God! Knowing that makes functioning in this world much easier.
Re(7): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Yet about a month ago, you more or less threatend Mahmood, called him a very nasty name and a unbeliever….Criticised him on a very deep and personal level, his family too. THAT WAS PURE HATE from you Malik. At the same that was a slap in the face to everyone who reads this blog and trys to learn from it, build some bridges (hat tip REO Speedwagon) and contribute ideas thoughts and suggestions. And you expect people to listen to you now? You need to step back Malik and serioulsy look at how you come across to people. Then you might not be such a lightening rod. Some people don’t love Malik.. They love to hate……
Re(8): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Yet about a month ago, you more or less threatend Mahmood, called him a very nasty name and a unbeliever….Criticised him on a very deep and personal level, his family too. THAT WAS PURE HATE from you Malik. At the same that was a slap in the face to everyone who reads this blog and trys to learn from it, build some bridges (hat tip REO Speedwagon) and contribute ideas thoughts and suggestions. And you expect people to listen to you now? You need to step back Malik and serioulsy look at how you come across to people. Then you might not be such a lightening rod. Some people don’t love Malik.. They love to hate…… [/quote]
It was not pure hate. Not all at. It was me being angry and frustrated. Big difference between hatred and anger. Mahmood actually taught me a bit after that instance about tolerance and forigveness and I appreciate it. I do not hate Mahmood, nor have I ever, far from it.
Re(8): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Yet about a month ago, you more or less threatend Mahmood, called him a very nasty name and a unbeliever….Criticised him on a very deep and personal level, his family too. THAT WAS PURE HATE from you Malik. At the same that was a slap in the face to everyone who reads this blog and trys to learn from it, build some bridges (hat tip REO Speedwagon) and contribute ideas thoughts and suggestions. And you expect people to listen to you now? You need to step back Malik and serioulsy look at how you come across to people. Then you might not be such a lightening rod. Some people don’t love Malik.. They love to hate…… [/quote]
Mahmood and I have made peace over the issue. I have apologised and have done my best to follow the things he asks of us here. It has nothing to do with pure hate, that is nonsense. I did call him a name I shouldnt have, and his actions following the incident showed me just how wrong I was.
I have been called names here, I have not seen any uproar from anyone, so save me from your self serving positioning.
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]maybe if you read books about islamic shariah and what makes an islamic state[/quote]
Oh, believe me, I know exactly what sort of horror that entails for believers and nonbelievers. You’re new here, so I’ll cut you some slack. All Muslim majority nations implement some sort of Sharia law in their legal code. Most Muslim insurgencies in the world today – Nigeria, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippenes, etc – have implementation of a ‘pure sharia state’ (also known as Hell) as one of their goals.
[quote]i mean look at america for example not exactly practising and preaching the religion of there ‘leader’. [/quote]
In America, there is no state religion, and we’re not a theocracy. Therefore it’s a [b]VERY GOOD THING[/b] that we are not practicing or preaching the religion of our leader. That is religious freedom. Sharia.. is not religious freedom.
Re(7): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Malik: The war in Iraq was never sold to the Americans as a mission to free the Iraqi people. You know as well as I do that Americans never would have supported it based on such a line. [/quote]
“And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.”
George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 29, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript.8/
Another wacky anti-American claim by Malik shot down in flames.
Steve
Re(6): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Hibbalicious,
Perhaps you’ll believe the London Times:
“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.�
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html
Why do we need to explain the basic facts of Saddam’s regime to you when the whole story is widely published and broadcast around the world? What is so irritating about aggressively ignorant posters such as you is that not only have you not done your homework, you ridicule as uneducated the people who have and know the facts.
Steve
[Modified by: Steve The American (Steve) on May 22, 2005 09:07 PM]
Re(13): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Malik,
You are getting so much better at faking honesty, Malik.
You are a traitor because you blame America for every evil thing that happens in the world, no matter how farfetched. The silliest example, plucked from many, is blaming America for the Chinese mistreating Muslims in China. Sheesh!
I am certainly against any group that wants to kill Americans and destroy America, which seems to me a reasonable enough position. That obviously includes a sizeable faction of the Muslim world. When Muslims scrawl “Death To America” on the pillars at Mina, the sentiment of the Wahhabis and many Muslims is made crystal clear.
Your game is to obscure the issue by evading the issue and distorting my argument by claiming it is due to bigotry against Islam, rather than a reaction to Muslim violence and rhetoric. That is the orthodox Muslim position, which cannot admit error by Muslims nor condemn fellow Muslims no matter what crimes they commit. The irony is that you, a follower of the most bigoted religion on Earth, projects your religion’s faults onto its detractors.
Steve
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Mahmood: I don’t know the full story of oil-for-food, ….[/quote]
Mahmood, here is an article that serves as a primer on the Oil For Food scandal at the UN:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/640mcodm.asp
Excerpt:
“The basic outline of the scandal is simple: Saddam Hussein used the Oil-for-Food program to circumvent U.N. sanctions imposed after the Gulf war and to enrich himself and his allies. He did this by bribing leading journalists and diplomats and demanding kickbacks from those who profited from selling Iraqi oil. That he was able to do so indicates at least that the U.N. badly mismanaged the program it set up in December 1996. None of this is particularly astonishing. No one is surprised to learn that Saddam Hussein cheats, that politicians take bribes, and that the competence level of the U.N. bureaucracy is, well, suboptimal.”
“”Saddam’s family profits from covert sales of Iraqi oil and dominance of the black market, where many of the donated medicines and food end up,” said then-CIA director John Deutch in public testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on September 25, 1996. “Iraqi government funds are used to maintain lavish lifestyles. Baghdad, for example, has begun working on 48 new palaces and VIP residences during the past five years, increasing the total number of estates available to Saddam Hussein to at least 78.””
“Iraqis were dying because Saddam Hussein was killing them. He was actively killing them, Deutch said, by executing his political opponents and by draining the marshes of central Iraq that provided sustenance to hundreds of thousands of Shiites. And he was passively killing them by refusing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and stealing food and medicine intended to ease their suffering.”
George Galloway was one of many politicians who took Saddam’s blood money, money made from the black market sale of food and medicine stolen from ordinary Iraqis. With an arrogance bold as Satan, he now grotesquely poses as the injured party.
Steve
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]George Galloway was one of many politicians who took Saddam’s blood money, money made from the black market sale of food and medicine stolen from ordinary Iraqis. With an arrogance bold as Satan, he now grotesquely poses as the injured party.[/quote]
Unless, of course, you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Galloway has never been charged with anything. One would think if the evidence is as water tight as some have claimed he would have been.
If there is evidence, charge the man. If there is not, leave him alone. As an American and a believer in due process, I believe the man is innocent until proven guilty. As a person who believes in justice, if he is found guilty he should face lengthy prison time. I have always supported stronger prison sentences for judges, lawmakers, police and the like who break the law.
The same goes for the $8 billion dollars that have gone missing in Iraq since we invaded. Time to get to the bottom of that!
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
For those interested in the actual facts about Galloway and his acceptance of bribes from Saddam, here is the US government report:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTPasquaGalloway.pdf
The section on Galloway runs from pp. 12 to 20 of the document, pp. 14 to 22 of the pdf file. The evidence against Galloway begins on page 14 of the document, page 16 of the pdf file.
The purpose of Galloway’s rhetoric and attacks on the US was to avoid addressing these painful facts.
Steve
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]For those interested in the actual facts about Galloway and his acceptance of bribes from Saddam, here is the US government report:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PSIREPORTPasquaGalloway.pdf
The section on Galloway runs from pp. 12 to 20 of the document, pp. 14 to 22 of the pdf file. The evidence against Galloway begins on page 14 of the document, page 16 of the pdf file.
The purpose of Galloway’s rhetoric and attacks on the US was to avoid addressing these painful facts. [/quote]
Please keep in mind as well that Galloway has not been proven guilty in any court of law, hence he is innocent until proven guilty. These are allegations, not facts. I would think with as many enemies as this man has someone would have charged him if they could prove a case. The fact that he has faced no charges would seem to mean that the facts are not so clear cut and the evidence against him is not as solid as some would claim.
This man is a lightening rod and his opposition to the war in Iraq has made him many enemies. I suggest that the people who are making these claims put up or shut up. If the evidence is there, charge the man and let him have his day in court. If not, shut up about it.
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]MALIK: And who would decide who is a dictator and who isnt? What about unequal democracies like Lebanon(has guaranteed seats to religious groups, not based on population), do they count? [/quote]
All governments who do not follow a basic standard of human rights should be removed. The Red Cross or other international organization come up with the standard.
[quote]What if they are one of “our dictators?”[/quote]
We don’t own any dictators.
Aliandra
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]
MALIK: And who would decide who is a dictator and who isnt? What about unequal democracies like Lebanon(has guaranteed seats to religious groups, not based on population), do they count?
All governments who do not follow a basic standard of human rights should be removed. The Red Cross or other international organization come up with the standard.[/quote]
How about Amnesty International? But, the US would have a hard time being included after recent damning reports on US human rights, especially in regards to prisoner treatment and the practice of “renditions.”
[quote]
What if they are one of “our dictators?”
We don’t own any dictators. [/quote]
We dont own them, but we certainly fund them. 80 billion to Egypt alone. This support for pro-US dictators is what caused the US to wait so long to condemn the recent slaughter of reform protesters in Uzbekistan. We have given him millions and have a military base there. It is this same support for dictators that is causing us to not take an active stance in support of the reform movement in Egypt. We have supported such movements in Georgia, Lebanon and other places, why not Egypt? IF we are serious about reform in the Middle East I would say it is very important in Egypt. It is the largest Arab country and very influential. Reform in Egypt, I would argue, would mean much more than reform in Lebanon and Iraq combined.
Re(6): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote] MALIK: How about Amnesty International? But, the US would have a hard time being included after recent damning reports on US human rights, especially in regards to prisoner treatment and the practice of “renditions.”[/quote]
Depends how strict you want to make the standard. No country is perfect and the US isn’t pretending to be. However, I and many others would not be crying if the US were tossed out of the UN. It’s worth less than the Manhattan real estate it’s sitting on. Not only could a nice shopping mall be installed instead, we’d get rid of all that nasty downtown traffic and the government would save tons of money.
[quote] We dont own them, but we certainly fund them..[/quote]
The check is made out to the Egyptian government, not to Hosni Mubarak. And that’s for Egypt to keep peace with Israel, as per the Camp David agreement.
[quote] This support for pro-US dictators is what caused the US to wait so long to condemn the recent slaughter of reform protesters in Uzbekistan.[/quote]
Malik, you keep re-iterating the same ol’ “US IS TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING� nonsense. It’s growing a beard.
Aliandra
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Steve is spot on here.
Also note that in the UK the onus is on the newspaper to prove beyond any doubt their allegations.
Galloway is a singulalry un-umpressive human being, he hunts ladies working in his constituency office, one temp gave a very unflattering view of him, such prederatory men are generally opportunistic and this approach carries over into their political and business dealings.
Re(7): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]This support for pro-US dictators is what caused the US to wait so long to condemn the recent slaughter of reform protesters in Uzbekistan.
Malik, you keep re-iterating the same ol’ “US IS TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING� nonsense. It’s growing a beard.
Aliandra [/quote]
Explain to me how the above is a “blame the US for everything” statement. It isnt. I want the US to put its actions and money where its mouth is. If we are for democracy and reform, like we say we are, then our actions and policies should reflect this. If we are interested only in our national interests, we should say that as well. Sometimes reform and democracy will actually be counteractive to US interests. We need to decide what is important for the US in the long run. Personally, I believe if given the chance many of these places will certainly vote in Islamist parties. I also believe these parties will fail pretty quickly. When they do I think more democratic institutions and parties will arise.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Steve is spot on here.
Also note that in the UK the onus is on the newspaper to prove beyond any doubt their allegations.
Galloway is a singulalry un-umpressive human being, he hunts ladies working in his constituency office, one temp gave a very unflattering view of him, such prederatory men are generally opportunistic and this approach carries over into their political and business dealings. [/quote]
He is innocent until proven guilty. Think about it, if the evidence was that open and shut you dont think the establishment in the UK would have had him tried and convicted a long time ago?
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]MALIK: Complete nonsense and oversimplification. I am talking about 50 years of US policy. [/quote]
Those 50 years of policy ended the Soviet empire, Malik. Communism was the biggest mass murderer of all time, or have you forgotten that?
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Please keep in mind as well that Galloway has not been proven guilty in any court of law, hence he is innocent until proven guilty. These are allegations, not facts. I would think with as many enemies as this man has someone would have charged him if they could prove a case. The fact that he has faced no charges would seem to mean that the facts are not so clear cut and the evidence against him is not as solid as some would claim. [/quote]
It is intriguing to see Malik take this tack. He who accuses America and Anerican foregin policy of uncountable evils, assuming guilt [i]de facto[/i], beginning to worm his way (quite Leftist-ly) into a ‘reasonable’ stance when the innocence of someone who ‘cried the day the Soviet Union fell’ needs to be defended.
Oh woe is us, Malik, that we cannot see your two faced Janusian ways. War is deceit claims the Prophet – may you ever live up to his example. Allahu Akbar (or something. I prefer Ethanu Akbar or Admiral Akbar myself).
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Yes, but communism was based on PURE SOCIAL JUSTICE! Everyone was equal, and everyone was told by the state (God) what to do, when to do it and how to live and everyone was in peace and harmony and there was no crime and only dissidents (infidels, nonbelievers) were killed.
See? Wouldn’t you cry when a ‘perfect system (religion)’ like that fell too? I know [b]I[/b] would. Certainly. Ayup.
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
And there are still people who say that communism failed because the right people weren’t in charge – them.
Aliandra
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Malik: Please keep in mind as well that Galloway has not been proven guilty in any court of law, hence he is innocent until proven guilty. [/quote]
Using Malikian logic, that would make Galloway as innocent as Saddam Hussein, who has likewise not been proven guilty in any court of law. Yet, in the real world, Saddam is guilty.
[quote]Malik: These are allegations, not facts. I would think with as many enemies as this man has someone would have charged him if they could prove a case. The fact that he has faced no charges would seem to mean that the facts are not so clear cut and the evidence against him is not as solid as some would claim. [/quote]
Not so, Malik. An allegation is an assertion without proof. The accusations of bribery against Galloway are based on Iraqi government documents captured during the war that document Galloway’s bribes. You can see the details of those documents on the US government document I have posted in this forum.
I am very much enjoying your labored defense of Galloway, a hero to anti-Americans everywhere, especially the part about wrong-doers being not guilty if no charge has been made against them. I guess that would make the mafioso who killed Jimmy Hoffa not guilty then, huh? And all the guys who rubbed out Dutch Schultz’s gang on Valentine’s Day are innocent too, right, because they have never been charged.
[quote]Galloway: This man is a lightening rod and his opposition to the war in Iraq has made him many enemies. I suggest that the people who are making these claims put up or shut up. If the evidence is there, charge the man and let him have his day in court. If not, shut up about it. [/quote]
Galloway had a chance to address the evidence presented in public that lays out the case against him. He evaded that opportunity with a cloud of rhetoric and insults against America. No wonder you admire him, Malik. He is a master of dodging the issue.
Galloway is guilty. He supported a ruthless dictator who trampled on his own people, applauding Saddam’s indefatigability while Saddam was indefatigably killing Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands. And Galloway did it for pay. Nothing more neatly demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of those who opposed the war against Saddam.
And we’re not ever gonna shut up about it.
Steve
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Galloway had a chance to address the evidence presented in public that lays out the case against him. He evaded that opportunity with a cloud of rhetoric and insults against America. No wonder you admire him, Malik. He is a master of dodging the issue.
Galloway is guilty. He supported a ruthless dictator who trampled on his own people, applauding Saddam’s indefatigability while Saddam was indefatigably killing Iraqis by the hundreds of thousands. And Galloway did it for pay. Nothing more neatly demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of those who opposed the war against Saddam.
And we’re not ever gonna shut up about it. [/quote]
He might or might not be guilty. I guess you dont understand how “innocent until proven guilty” works. He might very well be guilty, but it hasnt been proved yet.
As to supporting a “ruthless dictator who trampled on his own people,” how quickly you forget that the US supported Saddam Hussein as well, for year and years, with cash, arms and intelligence. Did you forget that Steve? We supported this “ruthless dictator” before, during and after he used gas to murder thousands of his own people. Did you have a problem with Saddam then? Where was your outrage then? So it is wrong for Galloway to support Saddam, but it was okay for the USA? Talk about double standards Steve. How can you slam Galloway for doing something that OUR own government did? Do you forget the pictures of Saddam and Hussein? Do you forget the millions of dollars we gave him when he was at his worst?
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
What I do understand is that you are attempting to say that nobody can have an opinion about an issue unless it is settled in court. It is an attempt to nullify anybody’s opinion that does not agree with yours by setting impossible tests for them.
Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate opinions and your insistence that we can have no opinion but the courts is easily dismissed. And really, Malik, if you want to convince us that you really believe this current rhetorical dodge of yours, you could do so by example. Unfortunately for you and this current argument, you have been a cornucopia of condemnation of the United States on a vast array of issues in which no court has ruled. Would you then admit, by your own logic that you can have no position not confirmed by a court ruling, that your entire portfolio of raging anti-American opinions documented in this forum are therefore invalid? Please confirm the illegitimacy of your positions according to your newfound court rule or explain why you feel are exempt from your own test for legitimacy.
And no, I’m not going to chase the new topic to which you have lept, to escape your defense of Galloway and continue your condemnation of America at every turn. I’m very content to camp out on Galloway until the cows come home.
Steve
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]What I do understand is that you are attempting to say that nobody can have an opinion about an issue unless it is settled in court. It is an attempt to nullify anybody’s opinion that does not agree with yours by setting impossible tests for them. [/quote]
No, what I am saying is that people can have an opinion, but according to the law ALL people, regardless of political background, are innocent until proven guilty. If there is enough evidence Steve, why have no charges been pressed?
[quote]Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate opinions and your insistence that we can have no opinion but the courts is easily dismissed. And really, Malik, if you want to convince us that you really believe this current rhetorical dodge of yours, you could do so by example. Unfortunately for you and this current argument, you have been a cornucopia of condemnation of the United States on a vast array of issues in which no court has ruled. Would you then admit, by your own logic that you can have no position not confirmed by a court ruling, that your entire portfolio of raging anti-American opinions documented in this forum are therefore invalid? Please confirm the illegitimacy of your positions according to your newfound court rule or explain why you feel are exempt from your own test for legitimacy. [/quote]
Again, you mistate the issue. We are talking individual rights here Steve. The idea of “innocent until proven guilty” is one of the basis of our legal system. You can have any opinion you wish, but the fact is he is innocent until courts say other wise. Your attempt to try and compare personal rights with actions of nations makes no sense.
[quote]And no, I’m not going to chase the new topic to which you have lept, to escape your defense of Galloway and continue your condemnation of America at every turn. I’m very content to camp out on Galloway until the cows come home. [/quote]
Steve, your condemnations of Galloway rings hallow because you refuse to accept that OUR nation had much more dealings with Saddam Hussein. Galloway never supplied Saddam with cash, weapons and intelligence, our country did. How can you condemn Galloway, a man and not America, when you refuse to accept the fact that your own country has much close with Saddam Hussein. Steve, our weapons, cash and intelligence led directly to the deaths of Saddams enemies, whather they were Iranians, or Kurds, or just ordinary Iraqis. Exactly how many we dont know, but many more than Galloway caused. Of course you will refuse to answer these points because there is NO way to defend these actions. You cannot attack Galloway and remain silent about the fact that American shared the same bed as Hussein.
I think that both the US and Galloway were wrong to have anything to do with Hussein, but lets look at the results of the dealings. People died because the US supplied Saddam with arms, cash and intelligence. No one died because of Galloways dealings with Saddam.
George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Please, we’ve had enough with your war of words, the lot of you! Why don’t you swap email addresses and waste your time on these arguments, because I don’t think many of us care to be honest. I’m not attempting to be rude, it’s just a little pointless, neither of you will change their mind, and you’re both hitting your heads against brick walls. Everyone is entitles to their own opinion, why not leave it at that and move on? Why do you feel like everyone has to agree with _your_ point of view?
It astounds me to see how much time you’ve wasted on these posts, take a chill pill, the lot of you.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Malik, you are confusing the right to have an opinion, ie the right to free speech, with the right to have a public trial before sentencing, a rather classic piece of fallacious rhetoric from the Left. It is sophomoric logic and an attack on free speech.
Everyone in free countries is perfectly free to take a position on the behavior of other people, particularly public figures. Your insistence that you can not take any position, have any opinion, that is not approved by the government through the courts is simply fascist.
The difference here Malik is that I am not imposing punishment on Galloway. That is why I do not need to wait for the court to sort through the facts and render a judgement before I do. However, the court is absolutely required to render a judgement before imposing a sentence. You are attempting, inappropriately, to apply the duty of the court to private individuals in an attempt to silence opinions with which you disagree. Your insistence that nobody can have an opinion without confirmation by a court is an assault on freedom of speech. It is also a rather annoying expression of your control freak character, which does not want to debate but rather to shut down dissent. Perhaps that character is what led you to an authoritarian religion like Islam.
However, more to the point, you don’t even believe in your own argument because you have never adhered to the standard you demand. For example, please tell me a court that has found America guilty of mistreating the Muslims in China, one of your many ridiculous anti-American accusations. You do not even respond to this because you have no defense for your own behavior, which is to try to hijack every thread into a venomous anti-American screed.
As I said before, I’m sticking with the Galloway topic.
Steve
Hitchens on Galloway
Here is an article by Christopher Hitchens that sheds light on George Galloway:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp
An excerpt:
“TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the senators, that he has “never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf.” As a Clintonian defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge that has actually been made. Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that, having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in respect of “charities,” he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it. I think I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.”
Steve
Re(2): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Then why not let it go Steve? Quite frankly I’m bored of coming to the website and seeing the same old debate, I think it brings the whole blog down. I’m not interested in reading regurgitated debates, and it would seem that’s the feeling of others too.
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]Then why not let it go Steve? Quite frankly I’m bored of coming to the website and seeing the same old debate, I think it brings the whole blog down. I’m not interested in reading regurgitated debates, and it would seem that’s the feeling of others too. [/quote]
Thats kind of why Mahmood put together the forums, so those that dont want to see it dont have to. I agree we need to work harder to keep these subjects off the blog and in the forum. Sorry.
Re(3): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
I’m bored with it, too. I wish we could move on to other topics and posters. This is hardly a debate. It’s just Malik posting his talking points over and over again and ignoring the rebuttals to them, only to post them again a week later to ignore the same rebuttals again.
My problem is that I just can’t let crazy crap lie on the sidewalk without sweeping it off. I don’t enjoy getting down in Malik’s mud wallow. I’d rather take the talk higher and learn more than read a dozen variations on how America sucks.
Steve
Re(4): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]This is hardly a debate. It’s just Malik posting his talking points over and over again and ignoring the rebuttals to them, only to post them again a week later to ignore the same rebuttals again. I’d rather take the talk higher and learn more than read a dozen variations on how America sucks.[/quote]
Steve,
He’s heard the rebuttals. No use wasting bandwidth repeating them. It’s better to just engage other posters.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
I second the gentleman’s motion!
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
I agree with DIB. I too am fed up of the tit-for-tat regurgitation.
Re(5): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
You have a point. However, abandoning a forum to one point of view has its perils, too. If there is no opposition to a pernicious view, it can come to be accepted. It’s the broken window theory applied to the Internet.
Steve
Re(6): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
[quote]You have a point. However, abandoning a forum to one point of view has its perils, too. If there is no opposition to a pernicious view, it can come to be accepted. It’s the broken window theory applied to the Internet.
Steve [/quote]
I think you’ll find that the people currently posting will stay posting and those who do not wish to read will not do so. I think the only effect will be that the people who do not wish to read will not do so. Funny, however, considering I am the only person here taking my line of view, even though I am far from alone in the world, somehow I do not think you would complain about “no opposition” if I were to leave and no one else of my opinion were to come.
I guess the opposition only matters if you agree with them.
Re: George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
Hehe I’m a female but so long as you agree then all’s well 🙂
Re(1): George Galloway rips the Senate a HUGE one.
You can’t be nearly as weary as I am. I’d be happy to step back and let some other posters come forward, especially some Middle Eastern posters with a fresh perspective.
Steve
Galloway Guilty Of Taking Bribes From Saddam
Now the evidence surfaces that George Galloway, the darling of leftists and anti-Americans everywhere, was on Saddam’s payroll to the tune of $600,000 (that we know of) despite the adamant denials he made in the US Congress which were accepted by his gullible supporters.
It’s now obvious that Galloway lied in court when he sued the Daily Telegraph for libel and lied in the US Senate under oath to cover up the bribes he took which literally snatched food and medicine out of the mouths of desperate Iraqis. A thoroughly disreputable fraud.
Christopher Hitchens makes the obvious comment and asks the obvious question, “Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.”
Good question.
Steve
Pingback: Mahmood’s Den · George Galloway Savages SKY NEWS!