The despicable bastard George Galloway, former Labour MP who told British troops to mutiny during the War in Iraq, is now running for Parliament for the 'Respect Party'. Frankly, I'm amazed that the son of a bitch isn't rotting in a prison cell- taking an oath of loyalty to the crown and then telling troops to disobey orders in time of war obviously isn't something to worry about any more apparently. Thank God that WW2 happened when it did- if we came up against a Hitler now, we'd be screwed because it seems that the free world doesn't place as much value on its freedom as the Greatest Generation did.
Anyway, Galloway is running for a seat in Parliament in Bethnal Green in London. This has become a largely Muslim area in recent years and the Labour MP currently holding the seat, Oona King, has been a supporter of the war. The media reported some weeks ago that this area would be a yardstick of Muslim opinion on the war on Iraq. Galloway, who also met with Saddam Hussein, has been quick to capitalise on his anti-war notoriety by picking the one place in the country he felt sure he could get elected. Actually, he doesn't have a clue- but I'm sure you could tell that already.
While Galloway was trying to smooze potential Muslim voters a group of 30 Muslim fundamentalists surrounded him and proceeded to let him know that voting was un-Islamic, that he was a false prophet, that they had already built a gallows for him and that any Muslim who did vote for him would face a sentence of death. The situation was so serious that Galloway later told reporters that the police saved his life.
In a related story, another group of Muslims interrupted a Muslim Council of Britain meeting and announced that Muslims should not vote in the election.
Religion of Peace strikes again.
2 comments:
I'm not saying that George Galloway is a good person or even that he's a good politician, that's another debate. But his advice to the british troops was an act of treason if indeed the threat Saddam posed to the western world was as serious as Hitler's. Let's see, we engaged in a war because Saddam was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks...No, incorrect, he has 'ties' with the Al-Queda operatives responsible for 9/11...No, incorrect again, he had weapons of mass destruction and was intent on launching a war against the western world to take away their freedoms...No, sorry my mistake again, we were trying to liberate the Iraqi people from the tyranny or their dictator and they'll be so happy they'll welcome us with flowers and open arms...Actually I'm not sure why we invaded, other than to secure the largest depository of oil in the world and to secure Israels position in the middle east. Maybe we did do it to liberate the iraqi people. Does that mean that these blokes are next on the list?
1. Is it an act of treason only if Saddam is "bad"- no, it's treason pure and simple because the government and parliament of Great Britain had authorised the war. The troops were following legal orders. Trying to get troops to mutiny is illegal- Galloway could and should have been prosecuted.
2. We went to war BASED on Saddam's breaking of UN resolutions- at the end of the Gulf War he agreed to a peace treaty which had certain stipulations- he spent the next ten years breaking the UN agreement he had agreed to.
2.No one EVER said Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 - go back and check what was actually said by Condoleeza Rice and George Bush.
3. Did Saddam have ties to Al Qaeda - actually, yes he did. There is evidence that Atta was trained in Iraq by Abu Nidal. There's also evidence that he met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. Also, Zarqawi fled Afghanistan when the Taliban fell- to Iraq, where he hooked up with Ansar al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda linked organisation in the north of the country.
Also note that there WERE meetings between Bin Laden and Iraq intelligence.
4. As for WMD, if he didn't have them at all (or the ability to begin making them) why was there so much yellowcake uranium in Iraq? What about the dual use equipment in Iraq? What about the sarin gas shell which was used as an IED in Iraq- isn't a chemical agent like that a WMD? Remember the convoys of vehicles seen traveling into Syria on the eve of the war- the convoy of trucks that "looted" a nuclear facility as the war began? If there were no WMD or the capability to make them, why did Saddam prevent scientists meet the UN inspectors without his secret police being present? Why were they bugging the inspection teams? Why was Saddam working on a long range drone aircraft (against UN resolutions) that could have released chemical or biological weapons? Why were they developing long range missiles, again against UN resolutions?
5. As for launching a war on the Western world to take away their freedom- Saddam was a destabilising influence in the Middle East, he had invaded Iran and Kuwait, he had used chemical weapons, he had contact with Islamist terrorists and was in constant conflict with UN resolutions. He also regularly fired on Allied aircraft. For him to attack the freedoms of the Western world he had two options- either plunge the Middle East into war by attacking a neighbour or Israel, or fund terrorist activities to undermine the West. If he were to create a massive war in the Middle East and disrupt the supply of oil from there it most certainly would affect the West, and posibly destroy our economies and societies. Oil isn't just about "Eveel Big Corporation"- with no oil we cannot transport food from farms to ports, or ports to shops. It would not take long for the shop shelves to be empty and people to begin starving- how long would Western society last then?
6. Iraqis welcome us with open arms- well yes- remember all those purple stained fingers after the election- or how about the vast majority of the country which is pretty much getting on with life? How about the kids that swarm around US vehicles and patrols? Want to hear what's going on in Iraq- go and read Chrenkoff
7. Finally, as for these other guys- if the Left around the world has made such a huge fuss about toppling Saddam Hussein, and that's after he broke UN resolutions for more than a decade, what would they say about that? The policy of the Left has always been- stability trumps
freedom. It's left-wing, socialist politicians- exactly like Galloway- who opposed Iraq, and still do- despite the fact that these people were liberated from tyranny and within months given the opportunity to vote for the first time. What about Afghanistan- the US overthrew the Taliban dictatorship, one of the most brutal, oppressive regimes in the world and replaced it with a democracy. Was that a bad thing to do? If it were not for the foreign terrorists in Iraq the situation would be much different. Remember the Iraqi people being killed now are being killed by these so-called insurgents and militants- none of whom give a toss about Iraq or its citizens. Theirs is a war against freedom and democracy which they see as fundamentally opposed to their religious/political system. The terrorists have lost the war in Iraq- a freely elected government is in place, freely elected local councils are already up and running- other countries in the region are beginning to question why this basic right of self-determination is not being allowed to them.
Post a Comment