I always thought that anti-semitic was a term jews used for anyone that stood in the way of them getting what they want, even other Jewish people.
What's the difference between an Israeli and a Jew? I believe about 80% of the Population of Israel are Jews, are the rest Palestinian?
Gorgeous "George" Galloway
You get Israeli Arabs as well, and christians.
An Israeli is a citizen of the state of Israel. All Jews have the right to settle there, even if they weren't born there. Palestinians have no right of return, even if they were born there, got expelled, or grew up in a refugee camp!
My understanding is that you can be born Jewish even if you don't practice Judaism, and that gentiles can convert to Judaism.
An Israeli is a citizen of the state of Israel. All Jews have the right to settle there, even if they weren't born there. Palestinians have no right of return, even if they were born there, got expelled, or grew up in a refugee camp!
My understanding is that you can be born Jewish even if you don't practice Judaism, and that gentiles can convert to Judaism.
Well, you haven't done a great job of answering my other points. You have, however, called me a Puritan because I think that Galloway is a creepy apologist for Saddam Hussein. You've also said that George Galloway claims that he wasn't addressing Saddam when he said "Sir, we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability". Who do you think he was talking to? George Galloway must be the first person in history to address a nation as "sir"!!Dadaist wrote:
. Just as Galloway said, I invite Tee's next question.
You reply to questions about Galloway by posting a photograph of somebody else talking to Saddam. Not relevant. We're talking about George here. We can have another thread about the US and Britain supporting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
You've been quick enough to judge me by my statements - can I take it that you're happy to be judged by your enthusiastic defence of Galloway and his behaviour?
You are welcome to think whatever you like as to the relevancy and calibre of my answers, and also to Galloway's claims with regards to his infamous meeting.
This is all very current stuff, isn't it!! Even Private Eye has the guns out for George - they reported that he was calling for Tariq Aziz's release, whereas what he *actually* said was that Aziz was being held illegally and should be either charged or released.
Also, the news tonight were ruminating over whether his intentions in the anti-war movement were actually financial, in that he knew if the invasion went ahead, he would lose his oil for food thingy. I do declare.
Judge me as you will, it does not make me either happy or unhappy. If you would like to remind me of the points which you feel I have failed to answer or wasn't up to scratch, please point them out and I will do my best.
This is all very current stuff, isn't it!! Even Private Eye has the guns out for George - they reported that he was calling for Tariq Aziz's release, whereas what he *actually* said was that Aziz was being held illegally and should be either charged or released.
Also, the news tonight were ruminating over whether his intentions in the anti-war movement were actually financial, in that he knew if the invasion went ahead, he would lose his oil for food thingy. I do declare.
Judge me as you will, it does not make me either happy or unhappy. If you would like to remind me of the points which you feel I have failed to answer or wasn't up to scratch, please point them out and I will do my best.
Okay. How about, "You've also said that George Galloway claims that he wasn't addressing Saddam when he said 'Sir, we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability'. Who do you think he was talking to?"Dadaist wrote: If you would like to remind me of the points which you feel I have failed to answer or wasn't up to scratch, please point them out and I will do my best.
With regard to his statement about Tariq Aziz, even if it wasn't a call for his release, it's still a typically attention-seeking remark from Galloway. He deserves much of the attention he brings on himself. You shouldn't feel too sorry for him.
Porty
It's the way Private Eye refer to people sometimes. It's a bit of an in-joke in the paper - I guess because nicknames become overused so much you end up calling them by their nickname more than their name, such that the original name ends up becoming more of a nickname. It's mainly used to poke fun at newspaper editors, like Piers "Morgan" Moron.
It's the way Private Eye refer to people sometimes. It's a bit of an in-joke in the paper - I guess because nicknames become overused so much you end up calling them by their nickname more than their name, such that the original name ends up becoming more of a nickname. It's mainly used to poke fun at newspaper editors, like Piers "Morgan" Moron.
I think he was talking to the people watching at the other end of the camera. He is an opportunistic attention-seeker, after all.tee wrote:Okay. How about, "You've also said that George Galloway claims that he wasn't addressing Saddam when he said 'Sir, we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability'. Who do you think he was talking to?"Dadaist wrote: If you would like to remind me of the points which you feel I have failed to answer or wasn't up to scratch, please point them out and I will do my best.
With regard to his statement about Tariq Aziz, even if it wasn't a call for his release, it's still a typically attention-seeking remark from Galloway. He deserves much of the attention he brings on himself. You shouldn't feel too sorry for him.
I never said I felt sorry for Galloway - one normally feels sorry only for people who can't defend themselves. Were you to stand against him, I'd certainly feel sorry for you though!
Whilst you can argue that Galloway is trying to gain attention for himself by these remarks and stunts, you can quite equally argue that he is trying to gain attention for the causes he believes in.
What Galloway said to Hussein is exactly what I would have said to Ho Chi Minh. But the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
p.s. it's not "we salute", it's "I salute"
Thanks fir that Dada. I have not read Private Eye for a while, I must do so the next time I am traveling.Dadaist wrote:Porty
It's the way Private Eye refer to people sometimes. It's a bit of an in-joke in the paper - I guess because nicknames become overused so much you end up calling them by their nickname more than their name, such that the original name ends up becoming more of a nickname. It's mainly used to poke fun at newspaper editors, like Piers "Morgan" Moron.
I am no admirer of GG the man, I believe he is riven with self-interest. However, I do admire the fight that he puts up to defend his beliefs, particularly considering the paucity of his armoury. He has no army but he uses the basic weapons that he does possess, brilliantly.
Saddam did much the same, holding the world at bay with little more than a pea shooter. Osama Bin Laden did even better, he managed to destabilise the World without a WMD to his name. That's where the similarities stop; GG never killed anyone but he is incensed by people who do.
Saddam did much the same, holding the world at bay with little more than a pea shooter. Osama Bin Laden did even better, he managed to destabilise the World without a WMD to his name. That's where the similarities stop; GG never killed anyone but he is incensed by people who do.
Would you trust Blair before Bush?Gemini wrote:I would trust GG before G Bush
and his cronies. I think most people believe GG has been set-up.
I think there have been def moves to demean and discredit GGG. I don't know if you saw or noticed the BBC zooming in on his smouldering fat cigar. As if trying to make a thing of the wealth that's normally associated with smoking stogies (sp). Either that or they were trying to reinforce the message that "this midget really does stink".
Porty wrote:Would you trust Blair before Bush?Gemini wrote:I would trust GG before G Bush
and his cronies. I think most people believe GG has been set-up.
I think there have been def moves to demean and discredit GGG. I don't know if you saw or noticed the BBC zooming in on his smouldering fat cigar. As if trying to make a thing of the wealth that's normally associated with smoking stogies (sp). Either that or they were trying to reinforce the message that "this midget really does stink".
I don't trust either of them, do you?
Galloway's testimony :- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm
46 minutes long
Ironically, I do trust Blair. I think at best he obfuscated over Iraq, at worst he lied and the consequences were terrible. However, i don't believe he is a liar by style, character or habit. He got himself and his Country in an invidious position and he took an incorrect decision. He ought to have lost his job but the people of the UK didn't want hin to go.Gemini wrote:I don't trust either of them, do you?
Like many people he will learn from that mistake and I think we can now trust him more than we ever did, JMHO.
Porty
It's great that he has the opportunity to learn from his mistake, unlike the kids he bombed who will not have the chance to learn from the mistake of being at home when the TNT detonated.
I'm sure there are mass murderers who, at the start of a life sentence, are genuinely remorseful. But they still have to do their time. In the event that they are let off on a technicality, or worse still don't get caught, I'm unsure as to whether they are remorseful or learn from their mistakes. Some may even go on killing.
It's a bit of an indictment of the first-past-the-post system that you are able to get away with saying "the people of the UK wanted him to stay" - yes, he did win the election, but I think if you tot up the number of people who *didn't* vote Labour you would have to add a few qualifications to that statement, because it contains arguably invalid assumptions.
I would much rather he was a liar than what he is, which is a mass-murderer by proxy - he ordered his soldiers to do dirty work for the American government.
It's great that he has the opportunity to learn from his mistake, unlike the kids he bombed who will not have the chance to learn from the mistake of being at home when the TNT detonated.
I'm sure there are mass murderers who, at the start of a life sentence, are genuinely remorseful. But they still have to do their time. In the event that they are let off on a technicality, or worse still don't get caught, I'm unsure as to whether they are remorseful or learn from their mistakes. Some may even go on killing.
It's a bit of an indictment of the first-past-the-post system that you are able to get away with saying "the people of the UK wanted him to stay" - yes, he did win the election, but I think if you tot up the number of people who *didn't* vote Labour you would have to add a few qualifications to that statement, because it contains arguably invalid assumptions.
I would much rather he was a liar than what he is, which is a mass-murderer by proxy - he ordered his soldiers to do dirty work for the American government.
Its not great, i agree.Dadaist wrote: Porty
It's great that he has the opportunity to learn from his mistake, unlike the kids he bombed who will not have the chance to learn from the mistake of being at home when the TNT detonated.
They may and i broadly agreeDadaist wrote:I 'm sure there are mass murderers who, at the start of a life sentence, are genuinely remorseful. But they still have to do their time. In the event that they are let off on a technicality, or worse still don't get caught, I'm unsure as to whether they are remorseful or learn from their mistakes. Some may even go on killing.
It may be an indictment in your eyes but its also a fact. And the great British public appear to be happy with the elecoral system,get over itDadaist wrote: It's a bit of an indictment of the first-past-the-post system that you are able to get away with saying "the people of the UK wanted him to stay" - yes, he did win the election, but I think if you tot up the number of people who *didn't* vote Labour you would have to add a few qualifications to that statement, because it contains arguably invalid assumptions.
He was voted in to do the dirty work for the british government, what's your point caller? Gemini, asked me if I trust Blair and I do. You are more than entitled to your opinion and view, i would not attempt to alter that and I respect it.Dadaist wrote: I would much rather he was a liar than what he is, which is a mass-murderer by proxy - he ordered his soldiers to do dirty work for the American government.
For the record, I don't trust Bush one bit, especially when it comes to the environment.
There is an objective difference between your definition of "the people of the UK" and all eligible adult voters. The Labour Party was endorsed by the former, as opposed to Tony Blair being endorsed by the latter. Don't forget that they had to wheel out Gordon Brown to steady their fibrillating campaign.
You should maintain a more consistent line on elected mass murderers - after all, the "people of the US" (if i may deliberately misquote you) didn't want theirs to go either.
You mistake indifference with the appearance of happiness. And there's PR in the Scottish Parliament.the great British public appear to be happy with the elecoral system
Ethical Foreign Policy anyone? Show me the bit in the manifesto about dropping TNT on kids.He was voted in to do the dirty work for the british government
You mistake my derision with disrespect. Had I wanted to say that I thought our respective opinions had different weight, I would have written some sort of preamble rather than relying on implication.You are more than entitled to your opinion and view, i would not attempt to alter that and I respect it.
You should maintain a more consistent line on elected mass murderers - after all, the "people of the US" (if i may deliberately misquote you) didn't want theirs to go either.
I could well be confusing indifference with happiness but Im afraid whatever my confusion may or may not be, we are dealing with reality.
Michael Howard clearly stated that he would have taken the country to war with Iraq, had he been in charge. He was more "honest" as he also made it clear that he wasn't bothered whether there were WMD or not. Regime change was good enough. (this makes you and I mad because in term of International law it is illegal)
Betweeen the two Parties (Lab and Con) they won 85% nearly 86% of the 645 seats. So that's 85% of elective power that would have taken us to War. or more accurately 85% of people who knew that there was more than a reasonable chance that the war was illegal. Still voted for what you refer to as the mass murderers. (by proxy)
What electrorate is it that you imagine exists? Are you counting the 37% that didnt vote? Could you be confusing happiness with indifference?
Michael Howard clearly stated that he would have taken the country to war with Iraq, had he been in charge. He was more "honest" as he also made it clear that he wasn't bothered whether there were WMD or not. Regime change was good enough. (this makes you and I mad because in term of International law it is illegal)
Betweeen the two Parties (Lab and Con) they won 85% nearly 86% of the 645 seats. So that's 85% of elective power that would have taken us to War. or more accurately 85% of people who knew that there was more than a reasonable chance that the war was illegal. Still voted for what you refer to as the mass murderers. (by proxy)
What electrorate is it that you imagine exists? Are you counting the 37% that didnt vote? Could you be confusing happiness with indifference?
My comments originated as a critique of the relative inaccuracy of the statement that "the UK people" voted for Blair. You've attempted to duck out of defending that exact point by trying to make it look like my response to your initial statement was to argue that the "UK people" didn't vote for pro-war parties. I never said that, nor implied it, even if there was a measurable swing to the Lib Dems.
With this in mind, I suggest you go back to my comments made on the 19th at 6.55 and try again.
With this in mind, I suggest you go back to my comments made on the 19th at 6.55 and try again.
I'm happy with my contribution so far, i see no need for review and I still trust Blair, which is where I came in.Dadaist wrote:With this in mind, I suggest you go back to my comments made on the 19th at 6.55 and try again.
You are totally correct that we do not vote directly for our PM but what's your point? Pro-war got 85% of the elected representatives of this country, after the illegal war. Who was doing the voting?
You could argue that people don't care enough about the War and vote selfishly but that's not going to get you anywhere, regardless of how right you are.
PR got us Jack McConnel, Jim Wallace et al in a coalition. What a fantastic electoral system that is.
-
mr magnolia
- Posts: 972
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 22:07
- Location: close to the edge
- Contact:
Well, tee has disappeared for now and I like Porty too much to start really taking out my frustration on how *anyone* can trust Blair just on him, so I will offer the olive branch at this point with the undertaking that I too will trust Tony "Phony" Blair, but only once he too has been pictured on the front page of the Sun in his underpants.
(offers hand to Porty)
(offers hand to Porty)
You really think So?Porty wrote:Ironically, I do trust Blair. I think at best he obfuscated over Iraq, at worst he lied and the consequences were terrible. However, i don't believe he is a liar by style, character or habit. He got himself and his Country in an invidious position and he took an incorrect decision. He ought to have lost his job but the people of the UK didn't want hin to go.Gemini wrote:I don't trust either of them, do you?
Like many people he will learn from that mistake and I think we can now trust him more than we ever did, JMHO.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election ... e_continue
If he and his ministers have nothing to hide, why won't he concede to :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/stor ... 32,00.html
I dunno, xxxx, we've done a half decent job of having a look at both singer *and* song. Some people like the man but not what he says, some the other way round (like me), some both and some neither.
My main gripe with Galloway the man is not the 4 houses, coats, cigars or "GG" numberplate, but being rude to catering staff in the Pancake Place. But seeing as he handed Norm Coleman his a$$ on a plate this week, I am willing to forgive, if not forget.
My main gripe with Galloway the man is not the 4 houses, coats, cigars or "GG" numberplate, but being rude to catering staff in the Pancake Place. But seeing as he handed Norm Coleman his a$$ on a plate this week, I am willing to forgive, if not forget.
Porty accepts your gracious offer and extends his hand. However, there really is no need, its only dancing.Dadaist wrote:Well, tee has disappeared for now and I like Porty too much to start really taking out my frustration on how *anyone* can trust Blair just on him, so I will offer the olive branch at this point with the undertaking that I too will trust Tony "Phony" Blair, but only once he too has been pictured on the front page of the Sun in his underpants.
(offers hand to Porty)
"Tyrants in his Pants" it must be a scream making up ths Sun headlines.