« Home | Torygraph wins most memorable front page of last 1... » | Further information about the (il)legality of the ... » | Deporting the easy targets. » | 25 (Update: 78) police destroy Haw's vigil. » | Absolutely shameless. » | Express-watch: More asylum distortions. » | Sun-watch: A marriage made in hell. » | Do the Home Office reshuffle! » | Academies r shit. » | Lining them up and knocking them down: Lies about ... » 

Friday, May 26, 2006 

Moron interviews cat: cat miaows.

Cat.

Moron.

Dear oh dear. George Galloway just can't help putting his foot right in it. This time, in a interview with everyone's favourite ex-tabloid editor, Piers "Morgan" Moron, he's said that the assassination of Tony Blair would be morally justifiable.

Just for a moment, forget that the war on Iraq started with a decapitation strategy, namely to kill Saddam Hussein. It failed. What he is justifying is in essence a vigilante attack, an act of murder as a policy of revenge for what he ordered in Iraq. Galloway claims that this would be morally justifiable. Does Galloway therefore believe in the death penalty? Even if Blair was to be tried for war crimes at the Hague, he would not face the death penalty, and rightly so. Nothing morally justifies the death of another person, whatever the original actions. It may make us feel better, it may satisfy our anger and lust for the blood of the perpetrator, but it is not justice, and we should be trying to end the death penalty worldwide, not fan the flames of hatred by justifying it.

Galloway does then go on to slightly clarify his comments by saying that he would inform the authorities of such a plot, and says some wise words about what would happen in the aftermath, but it doesn't make his justification any more acceptable.
"My goodness, this is a moral maze. Er, yes, I would because such an operation would be counter-productive because it would just generate a new wave of anti-Arab sentiment whipped up by the press. It would lead to new draconian anti-terror laws, and would probably strengthen the resolve of the British and American services in Iraq rather than weaken it. So, yes, I would inform the authorities."
He also makes some deeply embarrassing comments, like Blair did to the Sun, about how virile he is:
GQ: So there's life in the old dog yet ?

GG: Absolutely, oh yes, I'm 51, I'm younger than Tony Blair. I don't have a dicky heart, I'm up like a broom handle in the morning. I don't drink or gamble - I'm still a catch.

As Michael White points out, this all seems like very adolescent postering. The enmity with Blair seems more than anything to be like teenage rivalry, both competing for the same girl who in this case doesn't exist. The only difference is that while Blair has his odd moments, his image was carved out in stone, how he was a pretty straight kinda guy. By contrast, while Galloway has endured smear after smear and still came out on top, he's also been completely naive, something he doesn't admit to, especially over his Big Brother appearance. His vanity is also one of his stumbling blocks. In essence, both are the ultimate politicians; strong on spin and charisma, rather than substance. Galloway is gallivanting around the world, just like Blair, but without the power back here at home. Both could have achieved so much more than they actually have, and that's really the most sad thing about them.

Share |

True, true. Have to say, though, rather think that G.G. is just a headline 'ho - attention-seeking is where it starts and ends. A bit like Livingston's sporadic Jew-bashing.

As I understand it Galloway is just saying that in a state of total war, especially when your contry has been illegally invaded, it is morally legitimate to try to assasinate the leader of the enemy power, just as it would have been legitimate for the allies to try and assassinate Hitler in World War II. What is wrong with that? Galloway believes Iraq has been illegally invaded, and that the killing of Iraqi civilians is not an act or war but murder. This is nothing to do with capital punishment for war crimes. Why do so many people find it hard to follow a simple argument?

John, do you really think that such an assassination would be carried out by someone from Iraq? It would much more likely to be an attempt from a jihadist cell in this country - influenced by the Iraq war maybe, but still not from an Iraqi. I don't believe that any killing is justified, which is also a simple argument. By Galloway's logic, he must support capital punishment for Saddam Hussein if he is found guilty, as he is just as responsible for the murder of Iraqi civilians as Blair is.

The difference between the second world war and the situation in Iraq is that Iraq now does have a government that does not currently want the troops out, nor does it want the head of Blair, whether many in Iraq personally do or not.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Links

    blogspot stats
    Subscribe

     Subscribe in a reader

Archives

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates