In reply to this comment by budzos:
In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
In reply to this comment by budzos:
Wish I could upvote ten times for enforcing precision of speech. Can't stand when people don't think about the precise meaning of their words. So I pretty much can't stand most people, most of the time.


I can't tell if your talking about Galloway or the other guy? At first you seem to be praising Galloway for enforcing clear speech, but Galloway is the one dropping the context of the speech since Ahminedjad must pause immediately after the line to wait for the cheers of "Death to Israel".

I'm talking about Galloway. We're talking about precision of speech, not taking all things into context.

But then Galloway is the one being imprecise because whatever specific grammar Ahminedjad may have used, the entire crowd he was speaking to clearly understood him to be referring to Israel. More over, he smiles approvingly at the calls for "Death to Israel" that follow. In that light, I think the context is much more important than the precise choice of words.

Scott Ritter seems like a total hack to me. Never believe someone who claims to see all ends as this guy does (or as George Bush would). His bombast and theatrics are just terrible.

"And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie aint going back in the bottle, until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation....so tell me...you want to go to war with Iran, PICK YOUR CITY!"

This is the same argument that weasel George Galloway tries to make -- painting the Iranians (or muslim world in general) as harmless, saying that the Bush administration are complete fear-mongers, but saying that we should shape our foreign policy on the belief that they'll perform terrorist atrocities on us if we don't do as they tell us.

How can the talks of a nuclear Iran be fear-mongering when you're using the threat of a nuclear Iran to discourage attacking them?

Or was he not talking about Iran. What then, Al Qaeda? Do you think they spend a lot of time debating proportionality of response? Do you think the group that crashed jumbo jets into skyscrapers full of civilians are holding back on their nuclear ambitions because they think the US is playing nice now?

You know what, I don't really know the answer to all these, but I know that anyone who speaks with the certainty that Scott Ritter does is full of it.

edit - and his statement is all based on a ridiculous premise, anyway. Why on Earth would we use nuclear weapons against Iran.

>> ^BillOreilly:
I guess this moron never heard of the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted 8 YEARS.

You mean the Iraq-Iran war where Iraq was supported and encouraged by the United States?

"In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government...and also supplying weapons. President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."

Wikipedia

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
In reply to this comment by budzos:
Wish I could upvote ten times for enforcing precision of speech. Can't stand when people don't think about the precise meaning of their words. So I pretty much can't stand most people, most of the time.


I can't tell if your talking about Galloway or the other guy? At first you seem to be praising Galloway for enforcing clear speech, but Galloway is the one dropping the context of the speech since Ahminedjad must pause immediately after the line to wait for the cheers of "Death to Israel".

I'm talking about Galloway. We're talking about precision of speech, not taking all things into context.

In reply to this comment by budzos:
Wish I could upvote ten times for enforcing precision of speech. Can't stand when people don't think about the precise meaning of their words. So I pretty much can't stand most people, most of the time.

My biggest pet peeve in this regard is someone who makes a clear error in grammar, context, or quoting, who then says when corrected "Well this is how I use it and grammar evolves according to usage." Literal-mindedness combined with ignorance: the marketing victim mentality.


I can't tell if your talking about Galloway or the other guy? At first you seem to be praising Galloway for enforcing clear speech, but Galloway is the one dropping the context of the speech since Ahminedjad must pause immediately after the line to wait for the cheers of "Death to Israel".

If you want to see Galloway debate someone who can hold their own watch he and Hitchens, part 1 and part 2.

Before anyone goes congratulating Galloway's "insight", watch the clip of Ahminedjad's speech that pprt linked to. Ahminedjad's delivery of his line about wiping out Zionism is followed with a deafening course of "Death to Israel" from the crowd.

Ask yourself how an informed fellow like Galloway can honestly say Ahminedjad's quote is not about Israel when immediately after saying it he must pause and wait for the chanting of "Death to Israel" to die down?

One final point - if you believe that Hamas are created to invade Israel, and you believe that this is possible, you really need to look very hard at Israel, their military, their nuclear weapons (which they have illegally against the non-proliferation treaty which they signed) and ask yourself what would happen if America, UK and the UN recognised this as being the real goal of Hamas.

This is your proof.

Good luck.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter."
This makes Israeli invasion and occupation legal how? This charter is not denounced by the UN, regardless of its language. It is an extremist charter which, if you understand how culture works in politics, will unite an entire nation against an invading enemy.

It is not "my point" that Israel created Hamas, this is "what happened". Hamas is seen as the 'son of Israel' in the arab world. The majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. The majority of the world want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The Jewish people who march on the streets every year want Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained."
You are completely missing the point - Hamas has a charter but they are willing to negotiate a settlement. Politics takes care of the rest of it PEACEFULLY. If Israel stopped the occupation Hamas would not stay in power for long. This is the solution that Jimmy Carter saw, as well as the Egyptians and Saudis. Hamas will remain in power whilst Israel occupy the land. Just so you know, the Irish republican charter does indeed lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom.

None of this is my opinion, this is the clear facts of the matter.

If you still disagree, rather than emailing me back, please get in touch with Respect or the UK MP George Galloway who will be more than happy to address your points.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

"I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter."
This makes Israeli invasion and occupation legal how? This charter is not denounced by the UN, regardless of its language. It is an extremist charter which, if you understand how culture works in politics, will unite an entire nation against an invading enemy.

It is not "my point" that Israel created Hamas, this is "what happened". Hamas is seen as the 'son of Israel' in the arab world. The majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. The majority of the world want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The Jewish people who march on the streets every year want Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained."
You are completely missing the point - Hamas has a charter but they are willing to negotiate a settlement. Politics takes care of the rest of it PEACEFULLY. If Israel stopped the occupation Hamas would not stay in power for long. This is the solution that Jimmy Carter saw, as well as the Egyptians and Saudis. Hamas will remain in power whilst Israel occupy the land. Just so you know, the Irish republican charter does indeed lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom.

None of this is my opinion, this is the clear facts of the matter.

If you still disagree, rather than emailing me back, please get in touch with Respect or the UK MP George Galloway who will be more than happy to address your points.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

You don't just decide to not negotiate with an elected democratic government because you view them as extremists from inside your own culture. Nelson Mandella was an extremist, my own country is now governed by people who murdered and planted bombs in the 1970s, in retaliation to British oppression. They are extremists but they are not terrorists.

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

As MP George Galloway has said, a suicide bombing of of a group of Israeli soldiers in illegal occupation of Palestinian lands is an entirely legitimate military act, a suicide bombing of a group of Israeli settlers illegally occupying Palestinian land is an entirely justifiable military action. A suicide bombing of a falafel stall in Tel Aviv is not. A bombing of a nightclub in Haifa is not.

It is not the methods or the weapons that make them terrorists.

Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.


I call Hamas a splinter group in the sense of operating through suicide bombers and operating on a mandate to remove all Jews from the region because they are Jewws. In Hamas' sick and twisted version of Islam, that's every good muslim's duty. Did you not even look at the quotes I gave you, go read the whole charter and see for yourselft. That they managed to get a political mandate just makes them all the worse. The extremists in the world need to be marginalized, not dignified by negotiating with them. I'd say negotiating with Fatah and refusing to recognize Hamas until they change their mandate is the proper course.


It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.


And few political struggles with extremists have been resolved through negotiating, that's why history is littered with assassinations, coups, and wars. I'd rather see negotiations with the reasonable elements than lending any strength or dignity to extremists.


Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.


Now your listening too closely to Hamas' propaganda. Hamas runs out of Syria, they are primarily an engine to stir retaliatory strikes from Israel. Syria provides the funding, training, and rockets so Hamas can attack Israeli civilians. Then the Hamas militants hide in civilian homes and mosques and wait to see if Israel will come after them. All the while Syria hopes for as many dead Palestinians as possible to rally more anti-Israeli sentiment. Hamas lacks any real military strength to 'beat back' Israeli forces. Israel has always mantained a policy of short and quick military operations. The only goal they have is to defend their civilians from attack. Taking land is not a goal so there is no invasion for Hamas to even try to beat down.


Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


And what political steps are you proposing Palestinians have taken? Electing Hamas, seems to me to be making things worse and giving a mandate of more war and bloodshed, not less. For Israel's part, their political process has continued to encourage withdrawal from expanded settlements and encouraged the handover of land taken in previous wars over to the Palestinian Authority.

George Galloway is certainly is a sharp debater. I don't necessarily agree with him on much, though.

One of his main argument in this clip seems to be that attacking Iran is a bad idea because they can retaliate. That's a weak argument. I buy the arguments that we can't trust the intelligence and that Iran may have a right to be developing nuclear facilities. But the threat of terrorism to London shouldn't change your policy. That's just giving in to Iran's brinkmanship. That's rewarding them for supporting terrorism. I don't agree with Galloway that it would be justifiable "self-defense" for them to bomb civilians in London if we strike a nuclear weapons program.

He says Iran is a strong nation to be feared. Then a minute later he says they can't attack anyone and they're not to be feared, and in fact 300 Spartans stopped them.

All of the allegations relating to him, his wife, or his charity benefiting from abuses of the oil-for-food program are also suspect. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

The leftist says 'Never'...."

My God, you love to lie, don't you?

>>> Well, "never" is a bit of exaggeration, but the last time the American left got mad enough to fight was over Hitler. Now they show support by waving the Mexican flag.

You understand that attacking a country which poses no threat to your own is a war crime, correct?

>>> You lefties like to proclaim you know the intentions of nations run by weirdos and tyrants, as if you were some kind of magickal seers. Before 9-11 no one would've thought 19 drugged-up virgin engineers with box cutters could take down two skyscrapers. There's damned good reasons no one trusts the left with national self-defense.

You understand that Nazi Germany was guilty of that in WWII, correct?

>>> And look what an awesome job the appeasement weasels did stopping Hitler with worthless pieces of paper!

You understand that your opinions regarding "national security" and "war with Iran" are equal to that of the Nazi Germans, correct?

>>> Mohammed (another leftist hero) believed in preemptive strikes against his enemies. So try to think of bombing Iran as 'celebrating multiculturalism'. We don't have to wipe them out, just scare the hell out of them. "Crazy Americans" is something even the hardiest tyrant understands from the safety of his spider hole.

Or are you going to tell us that Americans are firmly behind this war again, forgetting to add that the only people that you consider American are the people who agree with you?

>>> Public opinion so far favors survival and victory over defeat. I don't care what the appeasers favor, if we lose they won't get what they want anyway. Yeah, it's gotten that bad. One can't worship socialism and expect to gain anything in a free market system except through government extortion and manipulation of the courts. How many generations are going to tolerate these parasites and bandits remains to be seen.

In short, like Bush, are you going to cover your first lie with a second lie?

>>> Right. There's that Bolshevik thingy again...rewriting history and blaming the accuser of the very thing they're guilty of. You can have your lefty mythology if it makes you happy, starting when Bush "stole" the 2000 election and go from there.

Being on the left is matter of endurance and little else. How many times can you watch the same failed ideas fail again and act surprised?

Galloway is spineless weasel.

"In this state of affairs here in America, Godwin's law seems like a pretty cheesy way to shut people up."

Then why do you resort to it so many times? You're constantly comparing conservatives to Nazi's or telling people they don't understand. Unfortunately, the sift doesn't log enough comments on your profile to go all the way back to every time it's come up, but from sorting through the cess pool of your personal attacks, here's one from just 13 hours ago.

http://www.videosift.com/video/George-Galloway-talking-to-a-brainwashed-about-war-with-Iran

Maybe you should look at your own style of personal attacks and arguements before you praise this video. I'm only bringing this up because the constant attacks are getting pretty old.

They both just follow the money, both flip-floppers.

Galloway just happens to be right in this case.

Galloway is another Neville Chamberlain.

This same spinelessness was also evident during the Cold War, when 'useful idiots' in the West tried telling us the Soviets only wanted to "coexist peacefully".

You can only have peace when your enemies fear you. The Iranians don't have the proper fear of extinction they should at the moment.

That was great... I hadn't heard of Galloway before, but I like the cut of his Jib!

Did you folks hear the office paper clip noises in the background though? Check it out at -3:30 & -1:13