Lenin’s Tomb
Jack Straw described Sharon as 'a towering figure of Middle East politics', which I thought an interesting way of describing a war criminal. I suppose one could describe Saddam Hussein as a 'towering figure of Middle East politics' as well...
It does open up the political situation for those with a more naked approach to ethnic cleansing. Sharons old friends in Likud will to come to the fore now Sharons more oppounitstic formation is likely to collapse much like him. There is no way it can survive without its "strong man." Netanyahu has shrewdly announced he has delayed his exit from the ruling alliance.
What this means in the short term for Israel's actions in Palestine remains to be seen.
well, it wasn't a "tiny clot of blood," it was a massive cerebral hemorrhage =P
the bigger the better, says i. i'd have preferred to see him in the docket before he kicked the bucket, but hey, you take what you can get.
any bets on what Shimon Peres and the other folks who left their parties for Kadima are going to do now?
The only reason Peres probably joined Kadima was because he'd be the next in line, one last shot for him to win an election...
Off subject but has anyone heard anymore on this (crazy) rumour thta GG is going to be on the new series of Celebrity Big Brother.
I'm shitting myself.
yeah, and this from the latest Haaretz poll:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hase...ges/
666920.html
that doesn't mean, of course, that Peres will actually be able to pull together Kadima with himself at the head... if some of the ex-Likud people go back to Netanyahu, etc.
Not confirmed yet, though undoubtedly Persion papers will want to keep us updated.
Ekk
2006/01/05
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Ariel Sharon dead
01:22:46 È.Ù
Tehran, Jan 5 - Zionist regime's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon died of massive strock, Arabic network Al-Arabiay said Thursday.
Shaorn, who was carrying the blot of massacre in Lebanese villages of Sabra and Shatila in 1982, died after he underwent surgical operations for hours.
Sharon lost battle with a stroke and the aftermath brain haemorrage aftrer he was admitted to hospital Wednesday night.
mr/kd
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.a..._id=205012&
n=31
There is no, never was a, peace plan, peace process, road map blah blah woffel woffel. There is only occupation, colonialisation, encroachment, land-grabbing, ethnic cleansing and 'transfer'. The exit from Gaza was only like every 'withdrawal' the US govt made from 'Indian territory' done in order to gain land elsewhere.
"Jack Straw described Sharon as 'a towering figure of Middle East politics'"
Thats funny how Straw has metamorphasised to this ugle neo-con monster. Was'nt he once part of the communist party or something like that...
No jimbo, no, he wasn't. He was an NUS apparatchik.
I don't think so but he has a Red past connected to Stalinist politics and was a former NUS president if I remember rightly.
Mandelson was the YCL/CPGB member as it happens. Straw was merely called a 'communist sympathiser' for his NUS leftishness.
I think Simpson was a little better than you say (he said more about Sabra and Chatila than all the rest of the reports put together) although he did have an odd line about "many Palestinians" having thought that Sharon had a plan to make their lives better. When he said this I was inclined to ask him to show me one, which I doubt Simpson believes he could have done any more than I do.
Still, there's a limit to how much it's possible to say critically of a dying man with many powerful friends who is head of a key British ally, and we must be thankful for small mercies.
I hope the fat bastard emerges from coma an impotent, paralyzed mute, and then goes on to live another decade or so to enjoy the 'fruit of his Labour'. . (or is that fruits of labour?)
To be honest I thought Straw's description of him as a "towering" man was quite accurate. Just in a different way.
What the fuck is he doing?!
What a fucking idiot.
Galloway is a fucking moron and his advisors are all full of shit.
I feel totally betrayed.
Galloway and I knew nothing about anything.
Callum, calm down. Trust me, this is going to be good. This is the dread Populism in action. Big Brother Against the War!
Its not so bad. Perhaps it really is a forum where he can get our ideas across much more effectively then Parliament. Definately gets larger viewing figures and lets face it he has a pretty much blank canvas to work on in the house
The guy's just totally moved up in my book. Suddenly a reason to watch tv, nice one george;)
Except it isn't. Very few people will watch live feeds. The highlights show will just be carefully edited clips put together to make George look stupid, plus a few manufactured confrontations with the same aim.
An immensely stupid move IMO.
Planeshift - yes, but you're a Pessmistic Leftist, are you not? No, I reckon he'll hold it together. The producers might try and make him look silly if they're so motivated, but he can't possibly look worse than these morons. Dennis Rodman will win it, of course.
Once the stories are whipped up in the press it could be quite bad for him. Did you hear Oona King on radio 4's PM the other night almost repeat allegations she made in the campaign, and say "you can be sued for telling the truth"...."one day I will prove it"? If anything like that came out he'd be in big trouble.
There's also the matter that since we saw him last it's emerged his former wife recieved payments from Saddam Hussien. That will be all dragged up again.
Lenin,
Is it true you have been invited on "Can't Cook, Won't Cook"?
will gorgeous ever again show his face in bethnal green & bow (and/or parliament)? nah
I turned on the BBC to avoid the context-free handwringing over our latest mine tragedy (i.e. no discussion of the last 4 years of eliminating mine safety regulations) only to find a 24 hour context-free death watch for Sharon. Criminy! No wonder I tune in more to Bloomberg where at least you can read between the lines.
And what's the CNN poll of the day? Will the peace process continue after Sharon is gone. And they say irony is dead...
"The producers might try and make him look silly if they're so motivated, but he can't possibly look worse than these morons."
The only possible outcome is that he looks like a desperate self-publicist who has subjected himself to a week on TV in the company of the worst kind of people for
a) Money
b) Publicity
c) He has no respect for himself or his constituents.
I can't see what can come of this.
He's went way down in my estimations, I'll tell you that.
To be fair to Galloway, Callum, this is merely a stupid idea.
His support of a "resistance" who suicide-bomb mosques, funerals and children is an abhorrent idea and should have put him down in your estimation long ago.
There are many reasons not to like Galloway, but his appearance on Big Brother should be way, way, way down the list.
..and merlyn rees dead. he taught me at school and my dad taught him when he was at school. I wrote to him during the 1964 Labour govt saying that now, after all these years of waiting to get into parliament (I had leafletted for him) he could make a really important statement against the vietnam war. (naive twat that i was). He didn't reply even though he was a kind of personal friend of my girlfriend's parents. But years later I met him and he said how much he enjoyed such a sincere and heartfelt letter. o fukkoff.
I've been banned from the Piss-Soaked Trots site, Eric.
I'm not allowed to talk to you.
Callum, the question is can GG explode the spectacle from within. GG became part of the spectacle some time back. He does his best to do some exploding and all in all he's pretty good at it. With Big B, the problem is that it recuperates as fast as it liberates. Except for the woman sticking the bottle up her fanny. That they couldn't contain. Perhaps GG will try something equally as subversive.
Callum - money? He gets no money for this. Every penny goes to charity: in Galloway's case, I think it's a Palestinian charity.
I really can't see why you're getting so worked up about it. He's sitting on a sofa with some minor celebrities, chewing the fat for a while. You may consider it ill-judged, and that will soon be apparent if so. But indignation seems a curiously inappropriate response.
I think the indignation comes an idea that GG has now become "part of the spectacle", as isakofsky put it. Many leftists from a petty-bourgeois background these days identify themselves not so much as against capitalist exploitation, as against commodity culture. And BB is as much commodity culture as it gets.
I think some people would quite frankly prefer that GG shake hands with Tony Blair than be part of nasty mainstream pop culture.
As for "ill-judged", the only bit that really worries me is that the scum had a field day with him missing one parliamentary vote last year. Missing a whole three week's worth? Are we really that the Respect constituency won't care about that?
It's more than a week; he *could* be in there up till a month. I doubt it though.
"He gets no money for this. Every penny goes to charity: in Galloway's case, I think it's a Palestinian charity."
I don't think that's true.
I certainly know it's not true for the others concerned. They're in it for the money and the publicity.
"You may consider it ill-judged, and that will soon be apparent if so. But indignation seems a curiously inappropriate response"
I suppose so. Galloway owes nothing to me personally. I just feel that this is such a ignominious move. What good can come from his spending a week "chewing the fat" with Jodie Marsh? Maybe I'm taking myself too seriously, but I can live with that. I just think socialists should be above the most puerile and base aspects of capitalist """Culture""".
HB - yeah, but contrary to some misperceptions, Galloway is an excellent constituency MP. That's why he kept getting re-elected. His activism over the fire station and the local council housing has been exactly the sort of grassroots campaigning an MP should be involved in.
As I see it, whatever the scum make of it - they will always make the worst they can of anything - this is his chance to connect with a totally different layer of people. There'll be millions watching these shows, much more than Question Time.
Where would that 'above' be, Callum? Where in a capitalist society is there a spot that is immune from capitalist society?
Good on George. He's a braver man than me. Gonna do more good than printing off any number of revolutionary pamphlets.
I just think socialists should be above the most puerile and base aspects of capitalist """Culture""".
Wow, I certainly know how to pick 'em. (No offence, Callum.)
I didn't know you were asked to go on there Sim. How much did they offer you?
I don't think they show any stuff about politics, you know. That's certainly a rule on the normal version.
Callum - I don't think that's true.
I certainly know it's not true for the others concerned. They're in it for the money and the publicity.
I'm sorry, but there's no money in it for them. Every penny goes to charity. Publicity is a different matter, but I hope that Galloway precisely is doing it for the publicity.
Mr. Lenin, I just want to tell you I like this blog, a lot. Make time to read it almost every day. Thanks.
On the other thread lenin said of the programme: I'm turning this shit off. I can't believe I've allowed myself to look at it.
lenin, ah, you scum will say what you want about it. I'm watching it anyway.
Len's Tomb is a virtual Big Brother. Think about it.
OHHHHH! Galloway! I was wondering who GG was; I mean, Glitter's in chokey and GG Allin (mayherestinpeace) is no more (woulda been good though eh?). George. Makes sense now.
It's good you've caught up Rob. What about Graham Garden of the Goodies?
"Where would that 'above' be, Callum? Where in a capitalist society is there a spot that is immune from capitalist society?"
Nowhere, but that doesn't mean you have to swim in every last shit smelling swamp you come along, does it?
I know Pepsi and Coca Cola are both multinational corporations contributing to the destruction of the enviroment and the superexploitation of the third world, but still, I choose to drink Pepsi over Coca Cola.
"I'm sorry, but there's no money in it for them. Every penny goes to charity. Publicity is a different matter, but I hope that Galloway precisely is doing it for the publicity."
Fine, I'll take your word for it. I know that last year's winner, Bez, kept his 50 grand prize money.
I'd be interested to see what Dennis Rodman's nominated charity is...
You 'choose' to drink pepsi rather than coke as some kind of political decision?!!!!!?!!!! I don't bleeeeve it!!! That's like saying I buy BP rather than Texaco because of the nice ads they do on the telly.Puhleeeeze, pal. You gonna miss Len's Big Brother (Marxist-Leninist)goody bag he was going to hand out to all of the inmates here.
Callum - I understand that some people are very selective about exactly how much capitalist shit they're going to take. But don't turn it inot a narcissism of small differences. I myself try to use my minor consumer choices in the best possible way - I don't knowingly buy anything from Israel, I avoid McDs and I don't get shit that I can tell is made from sweated labour. but it's almost impossible, and I can't blame anyone for preferring to direct their energies elsewhere.
And Galloway using BB - I'm sorry, but if he can pull it off (and I think he can), it's a stroke of genius. He's deliberately putting the antiwar movement right at the heart of so-called 'water cooler' discussion.
BTW Callum - were you not aware of Pepsi's role in the Chilean coup?
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail...?artid=36&
row=2
It's bottling plants are also anti-union and its drinks also fizz the fuck out of kiddies' teeth.
I warned you Callum. You see Big Brother (M-L) is going to give you some hard reading to do in a minute. I seem to remember something pretty stiff from Harman on consumerist rebellion sometime in 1978. You might be reading that in the Big Brother Marxist leninist garden for the next hour.
Greg Palast has some interest articles on Galloway, I seem to remember.
interesting*
I'm turning in. Try not to make too much noise, I want some kip because Big Brother(M-L) says that he's got some a new chore for us in the morning: learning the theses on feuerbach off by heart, word perfect. See you then.
They now say cannabis smoking can lead to mental illness.
Callum, I think your point about choices under capitalism is undermined by your cola example. We CAN make choices which avoid swimmimg "in every last shit smelling swamp" by, for exmaple, not watching Big Brother. This will be harder now that GG is in it.
lenin, I agree that publicity is generally good, but I'm sceptical of whether GG can pull it off in that territory. He was introduced as the MP who likes to meet Saddam, and was booed by the crowd as he entered (more than the others).
Ian - yep:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/
2...palimpsest.html
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2...impsest-
ii.html
Those two posts prompted a missive from Christopher Hitchens trying to turn me against the devilish Mr Galloway.
So how can we trust him on anything else - hence "Pepsi's role in the Chilean coup"?
glenn - the greeting of the crowd was entirely predictable. Galloway is a) a politician, b) a polarising figure. Plus, I suspect they were encouraged to boo - part of the Make Galloway the Comedy Bad Guy thing. I don't think the crowds that turn out for these things necessarily represent all or most of the viewers. But what do I know?
I do think the audience was horribly harsh on this Jodi Marsh person. I have no idea why she was booed so much. And Faria Alam got that too, again for reasons that are totally incomprehensible to me. I really think there must be geezers waving signs at the audience, signalling them to boo or cheer accordingly.
"Those two posts prompted a missive from Christopher Hitchens"
Could I get a look at that mate?
Ian - well, indeed, but you can always check out what he's saying, see if he's being unfair. Frankly, I knew of PepsiCola's involvement long before Palast wrote of it because, if I am not mistaken, there is a short discussion of it in Zinn's People's History of the United States.
My view is, Palast went a tiny bit crazy after 9/11. His tirades against Seumas Milne reflect this. The guy is clearly a talented journalist - as I said in my critical posts - and clearly not a Bushie. But he is as susceptible to the whip of the right as any liberal and therefore tries to plead his innocence by occasionally lashing out at fellow leftists. He is not alone in that.
Sonic - if you like.
Or, when these types of incidents occur where antiwar writers turn on their own, you get chance to glimpse what your own side is like, maybe? Not always that accurate with the presentation?
Surely you would have published it if Hitchens had contacted you?
Can we go twos up?
Very few people will watch live feeds
You'd have to hope so if you were that way inclined. Chin up...
Ian - no to both.
I don't believe you.
I don't really want to get into a debate about the efficacy of consumer boycotts - that's not really my point. As far as Lenin's point about Pepsi's role in the Chilean coup...umm, I wasn't aware of that to be honest.
My situation is a difficult one. I'm addicted to caffeine in diet Cola drinks. I've actually witnessed impassioned speeches from Colombian trade unionists detailing Coca Cola's contemporary behaviour, so I can't drink that. Which leaves:
a) Cheap nasty stuff that will rot my intenstines
b) Siding with Pinochet by drinking Pepsi.
Tough one.
" He's deliberately putting the antiwar movement right at the heart of so-called 'water cooler' discussion."
This is fanciful.
The producers are going to show him falling on his arse and flirting with Faria Alam - not excoriating U.S. Imperialism.
The best we can hope for now is a quick death. I'll be voting to get him out as soon as possible.
Boxing Day with Tariq Aziz.
A Jacuzzi with Barrymore.
They both pay.
if he can pull it off (and I think he can), it's a stroke of genius
Well, I'm sorry Len but that conjures up a quite repulsive image. On live television as well. *shudder*
Could you mail it to the gmail addy?
Cheers
Ian - okay, you don't believe me. Would that my life were so untroubled that my biggest fear was that you would not believe me. What I will say is that I have contact with individuals who might in themselves merit comment from time to time, and do not necessarily publish their missives.
I did publish one response from Hitchens, which was merely confirmation of something he stupid he had said about the French riots. In the circumstances, I couldn't have done otherwise.
Where is it then?
Raoul above, I chuckled when I saw this post of yours...
http://members.boardhost.com/
DT3...1136386389.html
Ian - it's alluded to here:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2...d-
language.html
If you want private correspondence, you'll have to whistle for it.
There's no response there!
You're confusing yourself with sonic.
BB update - Galloway: "I have never seen Baywatch"
Len ur blog rocks but ur wrong about Galloway in BB this is a fucking disaster...
we're a fooking joke already, all the work people have put into respect and he goes and pulls this! without consulting anyone aswell it stinks rotten...
its bad, its like he's willingly put himself on the sacrificial table or sumthin, even the guardians little piece on it is saying "controversial" politician who is still in trouble with those nice American senators.
Every piece of Galloway bullshit will be regurgitated with new bullshit coverage of him in that stoopid fucking house giving career advice to barrymore and ooogling the girls
arggghgghhgghhghghghhghghhg no
its a slap in the face for a lot of serious campaigners who've given a lot to the respect project methinks
Jodie Marsh just said she has a website with a blog which she writes on everyday which I quickly found on google. Unforunately you need to register to read it...it's free though.
http://www.jodiemarsh.tv/home/in...fm?ccs=22&
cs=53
He just tried to bullshit me he published a response from Hitchens.
Ian - "no response"? Explain yourself. I asked Hitchens if he had said what he was reported to have said, and he confirmed monosyllabically that he had. I published it. And of course Galloway hasn't seen Baywatch. I haven't seen Baywatch (since I was sixteen).
Lev - I don't know who you belong to you, but if it's a "fooking joke" then it doesn't remind me of anything I am part of. Your IP address looks familiar.
without consulting anyone
Do we know that for a fact? Are you actually on the Respect national council and can confirm this?
Seriously lenin, it's time to call Galloway a spade. Or something.
Oh ooo i think I've commented once or twice in places but I haven't fixed on a name.....
I may have posted with my middle name IminweTatu b4?!?!
I'm part of respect in pooooorrrrrr old little blackburn (most of the stuff I do is with preston respect tho matey)
i'm not on the national council but yes i can confirm this bro
HB - actually, I strongly suspect that this was a decision made in collaboration with Respect's elected leaders.
Lev - if you say so.
Raoul - I think you need to stop hanging round HP Sauce. I've noticed an alarming tendency on your part to internalise their niggling little voices, both on the MediaLens message board and on Persistence of Vision. Free yourself.
"I strongly suspect that this was a decision made in collaboration with Respect's elected leaders"
nope, dont really like talking bout this knida stuff over the web but I rang someone whos on the national council to check and he in turn had spoke to some of the most prominent of respects elected leaders, not a word was discussed until very VERY LATE at which point nothing could be discussed seriously..
I believe the SWP will have a statement on their site tommorow morning about all this Galloway BB related stuffffffff
Lev - sanctimonious twaddle. Good luck to Mr Galloway. The point of comparison that matters is to remember the only politician/sleb/meeja type to ever come remotely close to busting Ali G in his original mock-yoof interviewer persona. (And it wasn't some Blairite fucking wannabe, either.) Same principles apply here.
I've noticed an alarming tendency on your part to internalise their niggling little voices, both on the MediaLens message board and on Persistence of Vision.
You mean you couldn't refute the points I was making? Do you think people should ignore factual inaccuracy for the sake of some greater good? If so, what is it?
I refer you to the Persistence of Vision mission statement:
"undue consensus stifles debate and thought"
http://members.boardhost.com/DT3.../
1133813291.top
Am I supposed to revere Galloway? Why, exactly?
oy!
"sanctimonious twaddle"
um....jees now I remember why i dont post on these things
Whats the point in saying that! Doesn't mean a fuckin thing... honestly.
Given that Respect is much more than George Galloway, but at the same time understanding that Galloway is the singley most important individual in the whole organisation means that what he does inevitably (being the only MP blah blah) will affect the organisation as a whole.
Sticking himself in that house is not a decision he can take lightly (which it appears he has) though I doubt this is the last we will hear about all that
I've put a lot of work into this organisationm as have many others and I think we deserve a bit more respect than to be signed up to some communal laugh at the leties punishment
look at the character assassination of Germaine Greer from last time then magnify that by a million,
I love galloway, I think he's brilliant and honest and courageous but this is a bad move
Ah, don't ban me you tosser. You said above you once "published a response" - not that you only vaguely referred to it in a post. Come on, it was misleading. Unban me this instance.
Now, I was about to remark that if lenin's fantasies were correct and this somehow made everyone like Galloway, that's obviously totally unfair and against our system. Imagine if Blair, who would no doubt do much better than Galloway on this type of thing, or anyone from any of the mainstream parties, were given so much free air time to show us what are great guy they are mouching around with celebs? They simply wouldn't be allowed to do it; imagine the slaughtering a new Labour politician would get if they tried to that these days - we'd never hear the end of it. I tell you, if they don't keep up the demonisation factor of Galloway then they'll be some serious hell to pay.....poncy channel four with their antiwar film season - the things they get away with.
http://www.strobes.uklinux.net/c...ers/
124_big.jpg
What's the punch line ?
"the scum had a field day with him missing one parliamentary vote last year. Missing a whole three week's worth? Are we really that the Respect constituency won't care about that?"
His supporters will be supporting him, most of which I suspect actually do watch tv & BB.
Yes the crowd are told who to boo, most of them didn't know &/or care who he is, strangely. Most of the other inmates also didn't know who he was.
I reckon it's good that he went there without consulting his 'friends', shows how much he is his own person. If he doesn't like it he will leave just like the other GG did on the last CBB.
Much respect to the guy, and you lot could have a little more faith. All these negative and pessimistic comments re. GG joining BB are based purely on fear, is that how you want to live your lives? Obviously he doesn't;)
lol sounds like some positive thinking american PMA stuff
"All these negative and pessimistic comments re. GG joining BB are based purely on fear"... they're based on a rational understanding on who constructs big brother, who controls what gets in the papers and and why they might want Galloway on the show, I have no doubt that he will fight hard to get a message across but BB editors wont give him a 10minute opening statement like at the senate, this will be trial my murdoch- ouch
Blair 'dilemma'
Before entering the house, teetotal Galloway, who is MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, said the show would be a "chance to show a large and different audience what I'm really like".
"Tony Blair will be in a dilemma. One part of him will want me to be evicted early so I don't score another victory," he said.
"On the other hand, as long as I'm in there, I'm leaving him alone. That's going to be a dilemma for those that don't like me.
"Do they want me locked up in the Big Brother house, or do they want me at large and let loose on the streets?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/enter...ent/
4584056.stm
Um... back to the subject at hand, any thoughts on whether Sharon being out of politics (incapacitated or dead) will improve the prospects for the Israeli Labor party under its new leader?
Raoul - no to most of your questions.
Paul - one assumes that this is the fear of much of the media which had placed its hopes in Kadima rather than some other 'extremist'. Kadima may get a lot of sympathy out of this, but I don't think Shimon Peres can pull that wagon alone. He needs to find another war criminal to hook up with, and fast.
Ian - yes, it would be terribly unfair if a CBB allowed Galloway to communicate with a new layer of people (which, you will note, is not the same as your delirious misrepresentation of what I said). Especially as we all know that the big parties are desperately starved for media attention, have no spinning machines, no access to celebrity bashes ('Cool Britannia' style) and would never ever seek to improve their popularity by going on light-hearted shows (like, say, This Morning, or the football on Saturday etc). And you are banned, if somewhat erattically: we all know who you are, so there's no point in throwing your rattle out of that pram. Just lie back and take it.
I get my tv pics care of Telewest. These went down last night all over north london. Telewest were taken over by some megalopoly last week. Conclusion: world capitalism didn't want north london to see GG on BB (which signifies Graham Garden on Bridget BArdot, i think).
Graeme, surely?
Lev - sorry, "sanctimonious twaddle" is a bit harsh, due to the late hour as much as anything... however, appealing to the hard work of Respect members isn't going to wash. We've all put huge efforts into Respect, but that's not ever going to stop at least some people laughing at us - Big Brother or no Big Brother. A few predictable titters are neither here nor there. And what, in all honesty, are they going to drag out that they've not dragged out already?
George on CBB - why the hell not? He's one of the very few politicians to take seriously the idea that we should reach new political audiences. (Were any Blairite to be a "celebrity" in even the minimal sense demanded by Big Brother and then appear on the show, this is precisely the line that the lickspittle press would take. With George, however, it's all self-publicist, ego-maniac, yadda yadda, as if a politician with an ego and desirous of publicity was in some way an unusual or reprehensible thing.)
The producers of the show just want a spectacle, something that'll pull the viewers in. Their calculations would've included, at some point, I reckon, the thought that a certain political frission between George and other house-guests would make for popular viewing. Ratings are all they're after. The press will react as they have always reacted to George. So what?
Surprisingly I agree with Lenin & Meaders. This is clearly an intelligent and radical new communication strategy targeting layers of the populace not reached by mainstream political propaganda. (I am a little surprised that his new "turn" has not received even a short press release at the SWP and Respect sites - perhaps later in the day).
And its wider implementation?
Len - can you kick a football? You are probably too old for "football idol" but next years "The Match" is a possibility - in addition to a soapbox you could even unionise them!
Meaders - I imagine you with a fantastic singing voice and a bit of the X factor. If I might offer some advice though I'd stay off the Redskins songs until you've won the recording contract.
Sonic - obvious isn't it - "Space Cadet"
He looked rather sweet falling asleep last night. Like a little boy, he was. I thought to myself "Aaaaaaawwwe".
But then I thought "sleep, George, sleep the victor's sleep! Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!"
Isakovsky, I work for Telewest and beleive me, it's not a conspiracy - the CableLondon network is just shit.
Len
You get quite nowty with Jim Denham when he says:
lenin: face it; you have a hero-worship (or, maybe, even sexual) relationship with Galloway
then in the thread above you comment:
He looked rather sweet falling asleep last night. Like a little boy, he was. I thought to myself "Aaaaaaawwwe".
But then I thought "sleep, George, sleep the victor's sleep! Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!"
Touched a nerve did he?
SP - you're not familiar with sarcasm then? I wish I could make a television show out of this sort of shit: Trolls Say The Stupidest Things!! I could have it introduced with some whacky theme music by a smarmy young cock who thinks he's a laugh. Canned appreciation of each inept, foolish attempt at a 'point' by the trolls.
I was watching the BB entrances (rather may flat mates had it on, for me it was background noise to reading) and I looked up in amusement when Maggot of Goldie Lookin' Chain came no. For me that was the "winner" and undoubtedly the best entertainment value possible. The cheeky Welsh schemie would (will) get me watching here and there. Then... Galloway! That was me shrieking with delight and dancing round the room. Woop! Woop!
GG has always been an oily, publicity-seeking, narcissistic, egotist. He's no dour! But how many wars, massacres, genocides, ethnic cleansings, has he ever organised or voted for? Or agreed with? How many other Labour MPs, even the "anti-war" ones, the "anti-war" ones who voted against the war but bit their tongues, would have the guts to use the language he did. Absolutely fucking none of them.
I am happy with anyone to have the lowest possible view of Galloway, he is an elected MP and was a member of New Labour for years, and all elected politicians are corrupt scum. I would be the first to admit it.
He is, however, the only moral person in the House of Commons.
(I am willing to listen to evidence there any others, perhaps the the odd SNP MP, but certainly nobody in the Lib Dems, who are, after all, engaged in political powersharing in Scotland with a party responsible for Genocide).
The real questions for me are:
1. does he *believe* in the anti-war and other humanitarian crusades he is and has been engaged in?
2. is he an effective public communicator?
I am of the view "yes" in both cases. He is imperfect - as are we all - but as politicians go he is less imperfect than most.
He uses ballsy, colourful, humorous language. My favourite GG moment was on the CHANNEL 5 show, that daily one with that vapid tabloid cockney barrowboy I can't recall the name of, Wrighty or something. GG appeared on and during the topic of 'manners' and was asked if he would be polite to Tony Blair if he were to meet him face to face in the near future. GG said he would, of course, giving him first a Glasgow Kiss followed quickly by a Glasgow Smile. The audience was in (metaphoric) stitches, as was I.
He is a snappy talker with wonderful delivery, one of nature's comedians, a natural communicator, and his heart *apparently* in the right (left) place. In the absence of Bill Hicks (who could be incredibly right-wing at times - I refer to his despicable sexualised attacks on the most vulnerable of Americas poorest people) he is a tonic for dark times.
GG is - unlike that other GG Germaine Greer - smart enough to know the cameras are on 24/7 and it'll be tough. I expect him to dazzle, pull through, and if not win the show, certainly not lose a damned thing.
We'll see...
.
I read this exchange with mounting incredulity. Does anyone really believe that the Big Brother house is a site for deep political discussion through which Galloway will earnestly argue the case against the invasion of Iraq, and thus win the TV-watching masses to Respect and/or the SWP ? I'm afraid that's not what Reality TV is all about.
Nor can I understand the adulation in which so much of the left holds Galloway. As an opponent of the invasion, I certainly do not wish to be associated with Galloway, whose enthusiastic support for sundry dictatorships gives us all a bad name.
Bit unfair on Orla Guerin - she'd look grief-striken if she was buying stamps.
God people are on here are uppity aren't they?
it seems to me a big problem with a lot of people on the left is that they dismiss to readily 'popular' culture, behind which lies a haughty dismissive attitude that implies that 'ordinary' people watch all this stuff without being critical or shouting at the TV etc, that they are in a word dupes...my dad's unemployed the only thing where he lives people do is watch TV to get over the boredom, it doesn't mean they can't disagree with what they see, people have lives after all, which often contradict what they see or read, similarly my mum reads the daily mail, but agrees with a lot of what I say, because she has lived with the direct experience of being contracted out in her job - it's called contradictory consciousness and it's where most people are at.
Whether GG can break through the editing process of BB and cause a stir who knows...but one things for sure it will be all over the media, the media 'ordinary' people read for weeks - if he pulls it off it could have big implications...
...politics is about taking risks, leaps into the dark, the potential here is to connect with millions not a few thousand or whatever it'll be tough to beat them on their own territory but it's got to worth the chance...
Isakofsky - big brother(M-L)...love it! Do you think we could the beeb interested in a political spin off?!
I read this exchange with mounting incredulity. Does anyone really believe that the Big Brother house is a site for deep political discussion through which Galloway will earnestly argue the case against the invasion of Iraq, and thus win the TV-watching masses to Respect and/or the SWP ? I'm afraid that's not what Reality TV is all about.
The SWP are completely and utterly bloody useless. Nobody - nobody - bothers with them. Respect has already done it's job in giving GG a profile for the next 4 or so years.
I really believe the anti-war movement benefits more from high-profile speakers than none because all other dissenting voices have been silenced. There is zero airtime given on the BBC to the vast majority of British people who oppose the war. Dissent within 1 km of Parliament is banned - someone earned a criminal conviction for nonviolently stating the names of the British soldiers killed in Iraq. It took 2 vans and 14 cops to arrest her (a student lawyer).
Given such widespread and systematic attacks on dissent GG's BB is just about the only mass media opportunity in Britain.
Nor can I understand the adulation in which so much of the left holds Galloway.
Errr.. because he was the only MP to completely denounce the Iraq war.
Did you not know that?
As an opponent of the invasion, I certainly do not wish to be associated with Galloway.
Well the easiest way of doing that is to not associate yourelf with him.
As an opponent of the invasion I certainly do wish to be associated with GG.
whose enthusiastic support for sundry dictatorships gives us all a bad name.
Excuse my language, but you appear to be a liar, something along "Chomsky denies massacre" or "Shahak is a self-hating Jew" type lines.
GG has never given "enthusiastic support for sundry dictatorships", and if you know this you are a liar, and if you don't know this, you should.
Idiot.
.
Paul - given your rhetorical questions, I can't see that you've read the thread carefully. Of course BB is not a site for deep political discussion. It doesn't have to be deep. But Galloway is in there because of his political profile and for no other reason. He is expected to be 'controversial', which means he might say something rude about Blair etc. In doing so, I expect he'll also put the antiwar movement right there, in Endemol productions. Maybe he'll say that the Iraqis have the right to resist the occupation, as he does everywhere else he speaks. That will get some of the media howling.
Anon - The SWP are completely and utterly bloody useless
But not so useless when it comes to helping build the Stop the War Coalition or Respect, eh? Cut out the sectarian shit, young man.
Beria banned.
Lenin, I admire your optimism. Maybe on Big Brother Galloway will denounce Blair. And maybe he'll express his thoroughly reactionary position on abortion. With loose cannons, you can never predict in which direction they'll fire.
As for Anon, who denounces me as a liar and an idiot, because of my claim that Galloway has supported sundry dictatorships, I suggest he consult the easily available record. Quite apart from his notorious salute to Saddam Hussein ("Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability"), Galloway was recently in Syria, where he said, of Syrian despot Bashar Al-Assad, "For me, he is the last Arab ruler and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of the remaining dignity of the Arabs" (Source: Al-Jazeera, 13/11/2005).
Is that not cosying up to a dictator ? Or maybe Anon thinks that the workers and peasants of Syria chose Bashar - whereas in reality he inherited the presidency from his father. Syria has become not just a despotism, but also a hereditary monarchy.
Galloway has also gone on record asking: why should Iran not have nuclear weapons ? An extraordinary question for anyone on the left to ask.
So Galloway thinks it's OK for a theocratic regime, which has massacred thouands of communists and other opponents, and whose current president thinks the Nazi holocaust never happened, to obtain nuclear bombs.
Since someone is sure to respond "What about Israel?", let me make it quite clear that I am opposed to anybody in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) having nuclear weapons. I always thought it was the task of the left to work for nuclear disarmament, not nuclear proliferation.
Were any Blairite to be a "celebrity" in even the minimal sense demanded by Big Brother and then appear on the show, this is precisely the line that the lickspittle press would take.
What planet are you on? As Ian said, a new Labour politician would get absolutely slaughtered for doing a publcity stunt like this and in fact wouldn't be allowed to do it. Galloway should be condemned in the same way. "Cool Britannia" finished eight years ago and never entailed anything like this.
Beria banned
Paul - And maybe he'll express his thoroughly reactionary position on abortion.
It's not a reactionary position: he supports a woman's right to choose. His moral problems with it are not reactionary ones. I know many socialists who share them, although I am not one of them.
Galloway never evinced any enthusiasm about the Hussein regime, and indeed was an public and vociferous opponent of it long before the British and American governments stopped selling it weapons. However, his attitude to Syria is quite simply informed by its historical role as a leading opponent of Israel in the region. As a supporter of the Pan-Arabist movement (which has been eclipsed for some time), he has tended to look to the governments of the region to make it work.
As for your comments about Iran, you have misrepresented what Galloway said. He supported its right to peaceful nuclear activities to do with energy production, not nuclear weapons. His point about nukes was precisely the same as yours: no regime should have nukes, and if prohibitions apply, they should apply equally. If you're going to tear off on a rant, fulminating about Galloway's various thought-crimes, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts first.
And yes, I know you probably picked up all this shit at Harry's Place - perhaps there's a lesson in this for you.
Galloway never evinced any enthusiasm about the Hussein regime
As Ian said, a new Labour politician would get absolutely slaughtered for doing a publcity stunt like this and in fact wouldn't be allowed to do it.
...except when Blair does his meet-the-plebs-bit on Des O'Connor, for example, or Patricia Hewlett slums it in Take A Break, or when Cherie Blair has Hello! take photos of Number 10, or indeed any one of the any number of other times New Labour has done precisely these sorts of "publicity stunts". Except for all those occasions, I'm sure your point is spot on.
Galloway should be condemned in the same way.
Ha ha ha ha! You lot can't help yourself with the "condemnations", can you? Talk about cheapening the language...
Labourites being the establishment party of choice don't have to gain a profile through taking risks. Respect as a new formation has to trade of what exposure we can get. If GG's stint on Big Brother helps us gain a bigger audience for our ideas and campaigning work then good on him. If he scores an own goal thats the risk he has taken but he is more media savvy then people give him credit for.
To be honest, I feel as though this has been a year or two too late. I'm not sure Respect can make any more inroads (although they are quite welcome to try!) on the public's conscience vis a vis the the war. We're all fiercely opinionated on here, but I think the public have pretty much heard as much as they want to hear on Iraq now, and any pro- or anti- war comment is going to make them mentally switch off.
Maybe I am being incredibly patronising against the Big Brother viewership, for which I apologise if that's how it comes across, but I just believe it to be too late in the day to subvert the masses and win over an army of Respect followers in waiting. With the war, amid years of distrust and misinformation from both sides, they've made their mind up.
Plus, MP or not, it's not particularly controversial for somebody on television to lay into the Blair administration. Galloway has an incredible way with words so his political opinions are going to make for some seriously entertaining television. However, the only thing GG can achieve now is to rescue Respect from the portrayal it has that the media has placed upon the country.
Now a couple of years ago, GG could have used this little telvesion excursion to cause some serious political damage at the expense of Mr Blair - particularly around the time he was (barely) in the Labour government. That would have made for incredibly compelling viewing and perhaps an ends that would have actually justified its means.
Can't help but think this will be disasterous stuff for GG but we'll see.
Not sure I understand your point about Galloway's support for a Syrian dictator, Lenin. An opponent of Israel he may be, but I can't see why this excuses Galloway's support. The logic is indistinguishable from American support for whichever brutal dictator/paramilitary/religious grouping was deemed to be opposed to Communism at the time - not a wise or moral policy.
Kojo - my point is simple: the problem with Galloway's stance in the Middle East is that he has always looked to the Arab regimes to deliver for the Palestinians. I think he's wrong about this, and I think his comments about the Syrian president were misguided, but this has nothing to do with 'enthusiasm' for 'sundry dictatorships'.
Lenin - you are engaging in special pleading for Galloway. His remarks on Iran covered both peaceful uses of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.
His words were: "Why should Iran be denied the right to nuclear activities for peaceful purposes, if other nations are given such a right ? I do not know whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, but even if it does, other countries in the Middle East region already have such weapons. So why should Iran not have them ? What is forbidden should be applicable to all. It is not possible to consider something improper for others and at the same time proper for ourselves".
And no, I did not pick this up from Harry's Place. It's available on the website of the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), which is the state-owned Iranian news agency.
It's clear from the above that Galloway is saying "If Israel can have nuclear bombs, then so can Iran" - which is dangerous nonsense. No socialist should tolerate nuclear proliferation.
"Why should Iran not have nuclear wepons", he asks. The Iranian theocrats should not have them for the same reason that George Bush should not have them. These are demented people who think this planet isn't very important anyway, since in a fairly short time we'll all be off to play harps in heaven (or roast in the other place).
As for Galloway's opposition to Saddam, I know that's what he told the US Senate. But when he met Saddam face to face he fawned on the man: "Your Excellency, Mr President, I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq... I greet you too in the name of the Palestinian people... I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem". At least, that's how Galloway was quoted in "The Times" (20/1/1994).
I think those words can reasonably be construed as enthusiastic support for a dictator. As for aggression, I note that Galloway doesn't mention the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait (or, for that matter, the earlier aggression against Iran).
Don't you find it strange that someone who considers himself a socialist meets with a tyrant and has nothing to say about the tyrant's victims ? Why didn't Galloway take advantage of the presence of the media to denounce Saddam to his face - to denounce his slaughter of the Iraqi Communist Party and others on the left, or to denounce the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish minority ?
As for Galloway on abortion, you say he's in favour of a woman's right to choose. What he told "The Independent on Sunday", however, was "I believe life begins at conception and therefore unborn babies have rights. I think abortion is immoral".
That sounds uncannily like the line of the Vatican, not of the women's liberation movement.
I don't what you're referring to, but whenever Blair had done one of these little interviews he gets absolutely slaughtered for it, plus they have the other party leaders on at some point as well. Clearly no one from the serious parties would be allowed to do a publicity stunt like this, and even if they did, it would be the end of their political career.
As for Cheri; she's been the 'first lady' for eight years and there is quite a degree of public interest in what the wife of the leader of the country gets up to. Clearly that's not the same thing.
As someone on the left who is still in the Labour Party for want of soimething better I find some people's adulation of GG bizzaar. He's much better than a lot of MPs, and he clearly had a good war, but he certainly isn't the only or even the best of the left MPs. He has consistently refused to work as part as a collective (except when he is the leader) and his main role in the Scottish Labour Party was to convince other left MPs not to join the campaign Group. His voting record in the 1997 Labour government was exactly as rebelliousd as Jack staraw's.
This new stunt of going on to big brother will be seen in the same way as David Ike's revelations. If I were in Respect I would be furious that the central leader where to leave the organisation open to ridicule by pulling this off without discussing it with the party.
Rather than defending his actions shouldn't you be trying to regain some of your critical faculties?
Paul - very quickly, because these old smears are tedious and are rapidly losing their lustre:
abortion: George personally does not like abortion, as an aspect of his faith; he does not believe that he should impose that belief on others, however, and supports a woman's right to choose. (See this letter. "Line of the Vatican" my arse.)
Saddam: he's said how much he regrets those remarks; he said he was misreported and intended them to be addressed to the Iraqi people. You can believe that or not - what seems less legitimate is to drag out a single incident, now a decade old, as if it undermined all the rest of his years campaigning against Saddam.
Iran: a perfectly consistent position that the pro-war mob (whose criticisms you reproduce) have no adequate response to: if it is ok for one ME state to have nukes, it is ok for others. George's position, otherwise, is the same as yours or mine: he opposes nukes full stop. That's why he's been arrested at Faslane, FFS.
Paul - there's no special pleading involved at all. Galloway was upbraiding the hypocrisy of the West, not encouraging nuclear proliferation.
Galloway didn't just tell the US Senate that he had opposed Hussein, it is widely known by those who pay attention to such matters. I myself attended a meeting in which an Iraqi speaker from the floor thanked Galloway for having stood up and denounced the Hussein dictatorship when everyone else was coddling him. His meeting with Saddam in 1994 was as part of a campaign to end the sanctions. Naturally, he had to suck a bit of arse. If you think you stand in front of Saddam Hussein and insult him to his face when there are Revolutionary Guards all over the place, you have a rather warped perception of life. And as he was seeking Hussein's cooperation in ending the sanctions, it would not have been helpful to his purpose even if such a thing were possible. You could have found this out if you had bothered to look.
As for what he told the Independent - and yes, I'm fairly certain now that you got this from Harry's Place (your claim to study the Iranian news agencies on a regular basis is a bit laughable) - that is the moral objection that I referred to. He later informed The Guardian that he supported a woman's right to choose. Indeed, he is now the sole MP for a political party which defends a woman's right to choose as a matter of its constitution, successive manifestos and founding declaration.
Once again, this is all fairly easy to find out if you're prepared to look, rather than hastily constructing a Maginot Line of ideological bric-a-bric in your mind.
Jim - you don't know what I'm referring to? Perhaps, then, it would be wiser to find out before venturing further comment. Someone who apparently believes that Hello! magazine was allowed access to the PM's house without the PM knowing or approving certainly needs to do a bit more research.
SimonD - of course he wasn't the most rebellious Labour MP beforehand - like many others, the anti-war movement has radicalised him. As for BB, he's taken a gamble - it may work, it may not. The show's never done anyone else any harm. (There's an extraordinary amount of po-faced sniping round these parts. Proper politicians wouldn't go on cheap and nasty tv, oh no - except Blair, hem hem - which utterly fails to grasp that George's appeal is precisely that he's not a "proper", besuited, duckspeaking politician. Yay for populism.)
SimonD - which left-wing MPs are better than Galloway? And since when was 1997 the year of uprising on the Labour backbenches? And since Respect is unlikely to have been left in the dark about Galloway's intentions, hadn't you better stop worrying about anyone else's critical faculties and examine your own?
Boa tarde Paul Fauvet!
Are you still our man in Maputo?
Noel, you are right, but it does not stop there.
Check out my site where I work out the consequences of taking ordinary language (i.e., that which was invented thousands of years ago by workers, and still maintained by them - since they are in the majority - because it expresses their complex relation with material reality and with one another) seriously.
However, you might not like the results: it completely blows away dialectics (a theory predicated on earlier aristocratic Greek attempts to denigrate the experience and language of ordinary people - and modernised by Hegel).
Lenin - you're quite right, in that I don't study Iranian News Agencies on a regular basis. To find the correct quote, I just typed "galloway iran" into Google, and soon found the IRNA news item.
As for the infamous meeting with Saddam - can anyone in their right mind believe that telling Saddam "we are with you until victory, until Jerusalem" was a way to get sanctions lifted ? I imagine it would have had quite the opposite result.
You imply that he couldn't "insult" Saddam because of the presence of Revolutionary Guards. First, I doubt that even Saddam's goons would have dragged a member of the British parliament off to the torture chambers. Second, Galloway did not have to insult Saddam to raise such issues as the repression of the Iraqi left, or the use of poison gas against the Kurds. And if he thought he couldn't speak on such matters, then he shouldn't have gone.
Since the sanctions were in place precisely because of the nature of Saddam's regime, then suggesting that the dictator might change the nature of his regime would not have been out of place in a real campaign to lift sanctions.
Stalinist being watched by Big Brother, oh the irony.
http://www.workersliberty.org/no.../node/view/
5455
Raoul - boa tarde !
Yes, I am indeed still in Maputo.
Meaders,
"which left-wing MPs are better than Galloway?"
All these for a start.
http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/mp...n/mps/
main.html
Since the sanctions were in place precisely because of the nature of Saddam's regime
Nonsense. Do you have any evidence for this? I don't think that was even the official explanation for the sanctions.
Simon B - Some of those MPs are okay, but none of them are necessarily as effective as Galloway.
paul - To find the correct quote, I just typed "galloway iran" into Google, and soon found the IRNA news item.
You idiot. The point is, given the spin you're presenting on Galloway's statements, you have clearly heard about them at HP Sauce. Or do you now claim that you google 'Galloway Iran' every day for fun?
can anyone in their right mind believe that telling Saddam "we are with you until victory, until Jerusalem" was a way to get sanctions lifted ?
Learn to read, fucknut. I told you already: Galloway was seeking Hussein's cooperation in his campaign.
Galloway did not have to insult Saddam to raise such issues as the repression of the Iraqi left, or the use of poison gas against the Kurds. And if he thought he couldn't speak on such matters, then he shouldn't have gone.
I think Hussein is the type to take dissent as an insult. And I don't think anyone has gone to him in whatever capacity and denounced him in front of cameras. Galloway would have been shot. As to whether he should have gone: tough shit. Needs must, especially if Iraqis are being subjected to a silent genocide.
Since the sanctions were in place precisely because of the nature of Saddam's regime
They weren't. There are tens of regimes like Saddam's across the world, with no sanctions in place. In fact, they generally tend to be befriended and encouraged by the US. The sanctions were in place because of the nature of the US regime which imposed them, despite their demonstrated knowledge of the likely results.
You are offering apologetics for mass murder under the guise of auto-left critique.
his notorious salute to Saddam Hussein
He was not there to cosy up to Saddam, he was there to try to get himself into a position where he could minimise the damage upon the Iraqi people. That's genocidal damage mind you - and genocidal according to the people running the sanctions. Not some obscure group, but the UN heads running it.
After decades denouncing Saddam he went in there, bit his tongue, kissed an arse, and tried to minimise the effects of genocide. If I thought, however naively, I could make a real difference to genocide, to lessen the damage, I'd call Ariel Sharon a statesman. I wouldn't like to, I wouldn't believe it, but I'd fucking say it.
Galloway was recently in Syria, where he said, of Syrian despot Bashar Al-Assad, "For me, he is the last Arab ruler and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of the remaining dignity of the Arabs"
Syria is -openly- on America's genocidal "to do" list. Again, anything said is in that context.
maybe Anon thinks that the workers and peasants of Syria chose Bashar - whereas in reality he inherited the presidency from his father. Syria has become not just a despotism, but also a hereditary monarchy.
It's a judgement call, but what is worse: a despotic monarchy that can be overthrown, or having a hundred thousand American troops and Mercenary Contractors and fuck-knows how many orbital bombers massacring every Muslim they can find?
Galloway has also gone on record asking: why should Iran not have nuclear weapons ? An extraordinary question for anyone on the left to ask.
Reach around and ask why anyone on the left would support Iran having nuclear weapons and the answer is clear: unless Iran gets nuclear weapons quickly it is going to be the subject of an impending American genocide.
That's why.
I do wish to apologise for my language. It was a terrible day for me and it's not in the least helpful. I am sincerely sorry, I should be able to take criticism without spitting my dummy, and I'm going to try try try harder.
and whose current president thinks the Nazi holocaust never happened,
If I were living next to Israel with Israel openly doing its best to engineer an assault of Iraq proportions on me I'd deny the holocaust just to piss them off. It doesn't make it true, it doesn't make it nice, but calling names and insulting the people who are attempting to engineer genocide on you is, if not honourable, is understandable.
Since someone is sure to respond "What about Israel?", let me make it quite clear that I am opposed to anybody in the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter) having nuclear weapons. I always thought it was the task of the left to work for nuclear disarmament, not nuclear proliferation.
What are the chances of Israel giving up nuclear weapons? Nil.
What are the chances of Israel (or it's leashing, Am
America) invading a nuclear-proficient country? Ni.
What are the chances of Israel (or leashing) invading and annihilating in genocide Muslim countries without nuclear weapons? Certain.
It's not a reactionary position: he supports a woman's right to choose. His moral problems with it are not reactionary ones. I know many socialists who share them, although I am not one of them.
One of the women on the left I know had an abortion, her first, at nearly the age of forty. She was and remains of the option women should have abortions available if requested. However, the experience of having one left her in the situation where she was wasn't quite so morally certain ... not quite so ... so ... not quite so smug on the issue.
I don't know you are smug on the issue, but it sounded that way, fucking scoring points from it.
The start of a human is conception, the clue is in the phrase. You can argue unborn babies should have no rights because the rights of an existing person should take priority, but you should not argue it so fucking smugly. In my view.
No socialist should tolerate nuclear proliferation.
So you support an impending Israeli-American genocide in Iran? No, of course you don't. Okay, let's see how you oppose it:
1. Go on a protest march
2. Print sarcastic t-shirts.
3. Whine on the Internet how you have little access to the media.
That's about it. Result: genocide in Iran.
This is how the Iranians plan to oppose it:
1. Building BIG FUCKING BAGS.
2. Saying "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough".
Result: no invasion, no genocide.
Rosa: great site!
.
typo up there : BAGS = BOMBS
I'm sure there is a Tesco-Military-Complex slogan in there somewhere.
dear paul what happened to "the nature of saddams regime" between 1980 and august 1991 ?
or was his regime without a nature when using the chemical weapons the west supplied him with and happily supporting genocidal ravages against kurds by turkey and, er, the ba'athist tyrrany of iraq?
you may need to google hypocritical and ill informed.
Lenin - why are you so obsessed with a rival blog ? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of politically inclined blogs, some on the left, some on the right - yet you automatically assume that if someone criticises Galloway, they must be plagiarising Harry's Place.
I do indeed read Harry's Place, just as I look at many other blogs, including (obviously) Lenin's Tomb.
As for sanctions, I seem to recall that they were imposed after Saddam had invaded one of his neighbours, and after the west woke up to the fact that he had some rather unpleasant weapons (undoubtedly acquired with western complicity). So they were indeed imposed because of the nature of his regime.
As for "apologetics for mass murder", it's not me who goes round shaking hands with genocidal tyrants.
"Learn to read, fucknut", you snarl - to which my only response is, learn to construct an argument without recourse to insult or obscenity
But Lenin's remarks sound sane and reasonable compared with Anon, who is quite happy with nuclear proliferation, and wants to see the theocrats in Tehran armed to the teeth.
He also believes that holocaust denial is "understandable" if you're living next to Israel. So if David Irving were to make his speeches and publish his books in Tehran, that would be OK, then.
The Palestinian Authority is a lot closer to Israel than Iran, and has suffered much more at the hands of successive Israeli governments than Iranians have - yet I don't hear Palestinian spokesmen suggesting that the holocaust is a hoax, and that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Anon's theory is that nuclear bombs stop genocide. This is just a variant on the Cold War theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (appropriately known as MAD) which justified the American-Soviet arms race. The left always regarded this as both immoral and daft.
Lenin and anon - Sorry, that last post is not anonymous at all, I just used a different computer, and forgot to put my name at the top. Apologies for any confusion.
As for "apologetics for mass murder", it's not me who goes round shaking hands with genocidal tyrants.
Nope, that'd be Donald Rumsfeld. Who, just for shits and giggles, was also busily offering diplomatic and material support.
Ten years ago, George met Saddam Hussein, whilst campaigning against sanctions. I'm sorry - is this news? Am I meant to be shocked?
Simon - the AWL are criticising George's participation in BB? How come they had the godawful "Kitten" speaking at their conference a couple of years back, then? Oh well, never mind...
"As for sanctions, I seem to recall that they were imposed after Saddam had invaded one of his neighbours, and after the west woke up to the fact that he had some rather unpleasant weapons (undoubtedly acquired with western complicity). So they were indeed imposed because of the nature of his regime."
Except it wasn't the first time Saddam had attacked another country, so unless the leaders of the west are so incompetant, stupid and ignorant (in which case they shouldn't be leading their countries) then they were perfactly aware of the nature of his regime, and supported him.
I like the way you just describe the change of western policy to him as "waking up" as if previously the west had just been asleep and had ignored his regime, and describe the arming and condoning of his wars as merely "complicity". We (the west) armed him, gave him diplomatic support and encouraged him throughout the 1980s. The policy only changed when he disobeyed/misinterpreted orders. Your language is an excellent example of how people minimise the crimes for which we bare some responsability.
"Minister for London Jim Fitzpatrick said: "I am not too surprised about it, as Mr Galloway is a C-list politician with an A-list ego." "
Another perfect reason for going into BB. Getting Blairite appartchiks irritated.
Are you really Michael Rosen?
Is GG on leave or on vacation? How else could he participate in CBB?
Georges ex is driving a hard bargain for her silence over OFF.
GG needs all the cash he can get at this difficult time.
...we are all Michael Rosen!
noel, stop fucking about.
Well, for the Galloway-junkies (both fans and foes), this comes close to summarising some of my thoughts:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/
news...front.html#more
kiss my ass
Nous sommes tous les allemands juifs, noel. (after Marchais had slagged off Cohn-Bendit) Merci.
I mean spartacus. sorry, it's late.
I thought Tim (Dr. Evil) was banned from here.
Channel 4 attempts to gag Galloway
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site....html?
gusrc=rss
Galloway goes under the radar
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
frontp...1681223,00.html
So, the media hate Galloway. Big surprise there. The fact that the media and political figures take the time out to attack him for taking advantage of an innovative means to reach out to disaffected Britons, just shows that he's doing the right thing. Lenin's link to that other piece says it all.
Hey - is the Bulldozer dead yet? I'm starting to look silly in my party hat.
Lenin's link to that other piece says it all.
Are you a moron? This link discredits lenin's link.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site....html?
gusrc=rss
Lenin thinks Galloway is pushing a political agenda.
He He.
He was lined up to do celebrity fit club until BB offered him more cash.
This is about money and buying silence in a divorce case.
Len is very gullible.
after Marchais had slagged off Cohn-Bendit
People didn't really "slag off" in the Sixties, did they? More of a Nineties term.
An interesting socio-linguistic point there Justers. Yes, you're write. And then he did it in French anyway. I don't know the slang for 'insulter'.
So, are we banning Dr. Evil from this site or not?
Seriously, he gives the place a really fucking bad smell.
Tony,
You must be very proud of your support for Galloway.
A great leap forward for a fool.
I don't know the slang for 'insulter'.
Me neither. Strictly speaking I'd like to learn some colloquial French to pep up my ancient A-Level, but I'm just crash-learning Spanish and you can't really do both simultaneously...
Goodbye Sharon! and good riddance.
stakin was better than hitrler, as htriler killed more peopl;e, and hitler killed 25million by famine and manultrition in ww2
Anon's theory is that nuclear bombs stop genocide. This is just a variant on the Cold War theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (appropriately known as MAD) which justified the American-Soviet arms race. The left always regarded this as both immoral and daft.
The Left is not a monolith and you are not it's sole spokeman.
You can regard it as immoral and daft, but it happens to be true, true in the sense if Iraq had nuclear weapons it would not have been invaded. And, let's face it, if the Soviets did not have nuclear weapons there is a very real possiblity the Americans would have used nuclear weapons on Moscow. They were almost willing to go to nuclear war with the Soviets even with the fear of reprisal. Without that fear...
You can sit fat and happy sipping latte in East London (or wherever) but I doubt you are currently living (and unable to leave) a country on America's "to do" list. For those people an impending American invasion is much more serious than you give credit. General comments of "immoral and daft" are hardly logic and fact based couterarguments.
I do, of course, recognise in the long-term nuclear proliferation is a bad thing (I'll avoid sectarianism by not claiming an Islamic bomb is bad, I don't see why an Islamic-state bomb is worse than a Christian-state bomb or Jewish-state bomb). But for the people living in Iran right now... it is possibly the only thing that will avoid genocide in their land in a decade.
Of course, if you know of a non-nuclear method of preventing America engaging in yet another invasion and genocide please do let us know, after all, it would be immoral and daft to keep such valuable information secret.
Perhaps it is there is nothing in your imagination that can forsee a way to stop an American invasion. Instead of admit it, and deal with that reality, you attack. Just like the Americans (though I'm happy to say with less fatalities).
.
...Sabra and Shatila.
I hope that Zionist fuck dies a slooow and excruciating death.
Commenting by HaloScan
