George Galloway, meet reality.


Now as dirty as I feel linking to this site its just to good to pass up.

Three Muslim extremists charged after attack on Galloway

George Galloway was set upon by a group of Muslim extremists while campaigning in East London this afternoon. Three men, believed to belong to the extreme sect Islam4UK, the latest name for Al-Muhajiroun, were arrested and subsequently charged with public order offences.

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Couldnt happen to a nicer bag of shit.

Leotarded pole smoker in action.

“They called me a filthy Kaffir” said Galloway, “and shouted that no one should shake the ‘filthy Kaffir’s hand’.

Assume a virtue if you have it not. 

Well in all fairness I wouldnt shake the vile shitbags hand either, but thats just on moral grounds, not religious nuttbaggery.

Galloway was also attacked, held hostage and received death threats from Al-Muhajiroun, then called Al-Gourabaa, in the 2005 General Election.

Held hostage refers to them locking the front doors of the meeting room he was in, he fled out the back, leaving his 23 year old daughter behind… Nice one George!

Nice area you represent there George, nothing to do with you though eh? Must have been Mossad stooges or something…

A reminder of the trail of slime this toad leave behind him.

more slime

52 Responses to “George Galloway, meet reality.”

  1. Giles Says:

    Nice language you use. We obviously did not go to the same school.
    I think George is a very brave and principled man … a champion of the oppressed. I say this as someone who loves this country but, at the same time, can feel for those suffering under the Israeli occupation, as well.
    George, you were great on Big Brother, not afraid to play to the gallery.
    I also think Saddam Hussein was judicially murdered and was the legitimate President of Iraq … and not these puppets there at the moment.

    • thefrollickingmole Says:

      I owe no respect or polite language to a person who toadied up to a mass murdering dictator and his psychopath son.

      George is a champion of himself. Would you care to defend his actions where he left his 23 year old daughter behind when his meeting was “attacked” by radical Muslims?

      Or is he “too important” to risk himself.

      Hes a pole smoking cat molesting cancer on the arse of a sway backed mule.

    • bingbing Says:

      Do you actually believe what you wrote or are you taking the piss?

  2. Giles Says:

    The mass murderers were Blair and Bush, as everyone knows. Do you forget ‘shock and awe’. The invasion was also illegal. Hussein was hanged for about 150 alleged deaths but it is Blair and Bush who should be kicking their feet at the end of a rope for half a million innocent deaths of Iraqi civilians … oh, and the deaths of young British soldiers who were never given the chance of a full life. As an ex-serviceman, I feel for their families. Geoff Hoon, we do not forget you, either. Not just a war criminal but a crook, as well.
    It is the easiest thing in the world to be gratuitously abusive but obviously, here, a lot more difficult to be reasonable and keep to facts.
    No, bingbing, I am not extracting the urine.

    • Giles Says:

      That should read: ” half a million deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians …”

  3. thefrollickingmole Says:

    Facts: Saddam murdered thousands of his own
    Facts: Saddam had allready invaded and been removed from one neighbour
    Facts: Even Saddams own generals believed he had WMD
    Facts: Iraq is now a semi-functional democracy.
    Facts: It took decades to rebuild Germany and Japan after their regimes were overthrown, why should this be different.
    Facts: If you are seriously claiming Saddam was responsible for 150 deaths you are as deranged as Galloway.

    • Giles Says:

      No, I said he was hanged for around 150 deaths. That was the charge. We can charge Bush and Blair with hundreds of thousands.
      Don’t you mean a ‘dysfunctional’ democracy?
      Accusations of mental instability do not apply here because I doubt that you are qualified to make such diagnoses.
      Most Iraqis now say they were better off under Saddam Hussein.

    • thefrollickingmole Says:

      No you said “alleged deaths”, thats called using weasel words.

      So unless the overthrow of a despotic regime, in a deeply disfunctional society, where a minority were privelidged over the majority results in instant satifaction and no bloodshed despots should be left alone.

      Heres a test, were the Communist Vietmanese wrong to overthrow Pol Pot?

      Were the Italians right to overthrow and execute Mussolini?

      Your position is a deeply conservative and immoral one.

    • bingbing Says:

      Giles, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Also but, just where the hell does it say most Iraqis preferred Saddam. Would’ve thought something like that would get a good run in the papers.

  4. Giles Says:

    bingbing … there is an awful lot that does not get published in the mainstream press around the world. I recall a report a few months ago, after a poll was taken in Iraq on the subject of Saddam Hussein, which discovered that this was the consensus. They were better off without him. This is self-evident.
    After all that massive bombing in built-up areas, the harrassment, torture in Abu Grabh and indiscriminate shootings by Blackwater mercenaries, the occupatrion of religious sites by foreigners, the looting of Iraq’s artifacts … it strikes me that people would obviously be better off under someone like Saddam Hussein.
    Calling him a dictator is neither here nor there. Party political democracy is not the best form of government. In fact, I do not believe any form of government is ‘the best’. It is what suits a certain culture with all its own history.
    Personally, I do not give a fig for any of the parties in Britain. They have all proven to be corrupt and our ‘democratic’ politicians out for themselves. Pigs in a trough!
    Except for George Galloway, of course.

    • bingbing Says:

      Hmmm. Not sure over 10 million Iraqi’s would agree with that sentiment that life was better under Saddam. After all, that’s how many voted in the recent election, despite the threat of terrorism.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_parliamentary_election,_2010

  5. Giles Says:

    I did not say 10 million Iraqis would prefer Saddam Hussein. I said an awful lot of them prefer him to an occupying power and its puppet government.
    I recall a slogan on walls around London in the 1970s and 1980s. It read, if voting changed anything, they would abolish it.
    Do you truly believe we have a real choice? They all support an international trading system which is the cause of all our economic woes. They are in hock to the global bankers. None of them has a plan to change that.
    Borrow less, they say. Why bother with bankers who create money out of thin air and then have us by the testicles.
    Those Iraqi voters would have been no worse off if they stayed at home.

    • bingbing Says:

      The changes of governments in the US and Australia have made quite a big difference.

  6. Giles Says:

    I disagree. They all are in hock to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
    The IMF lays down conditions for a loan … usually political that affects the lives of ordinary people.
    So much for democracy..

    • bingbing Says:

      Dude. The US, UK, and Australia are not “in hock” to the World Bank. Where do you get your info from?

      Anyway, the World bank and the IMF do many a good thing. The IMF helped bring South Korea back from the brink, for example. Now the country, years after all the loans have been repaid, is bustling.

  7. johannes Says:

    > half a million innocent deaths of Iraqi civilians

    While sources disagree over the number of Iraqi civilian casualties – the Iraqi body count claims some 90.000, the Lancet study some 500.000 – they do agree that most of this people were killed by the various militias, gangs and rackets of the so-called Iragi resistance, in other words by those who Galloway considers heroes, and not by American or British troops. By this twisted logic, a serial killer might as well blame the police for failing to stop him, or somebody who has killed his parents might appeal for mercy because he is an orphan.

  8. Giles Says:

    The fact is, they were the consequence of an illegal invasion … just as the deaths of half a million Iraqi children over a period during Saddam’s rule were the consequence of sanctions denying medical aid, etc.
    Without open trade (the sanctions) it is always the poor and defenceless that suffer. Children, the most.
    You can not forget the initial assaults by the Coalition forces that were used to bomb built-up areas of Baghdad night after night.We watched this appalling war crime on our TV screens, for heaven’s sake.
    All because America acts on behalf of Israel in the region, a state possessing real weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear warheads.

  9. johannes Says:

    > The fact is, they were the consequence of an illegal invasion …

    You claim that massacres by Ba’athists or Sunni Djahadists would not have happened with the old regime still in power? Well, I can’t proof you wrong, because your argument is purely speculative, and therefore beyond proof, but I would say its extremely unlikely.

    > just as the deaths of half a million Iraqi children over a period during > Saddam’s rule were the consequence of sanctions denying medical > aid, etc.

    Food and medical aid were excempt from the sanctions, the official UN documents on the Iraqi sanctions are probably still available freely on the internet, so you can read them – admittedly it will be a time-consuming and boring endeavour. If anybody died, the regime is to be blamed, which stole the money from the oil-for-food program and used it for its own sinister purposes (which included, ironically, paying propagandists like Galloway).

    > Without open trade (the sanctions) it is always the poor and
    > defenceless that suffer. Children, the most.

    Similar sanctions were used against Serbia and Apartheid South Africa – nobody ever claimed that children died in six-digit numbers there.

    > All because America acts on behalf of Israel in the region, a state
    > possessing real weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear > warheads.

    Israel always considered Iran an greater danger than Iraq; and, needless to say, the US is a superpower with its own strategic interests in the region, not the mere tool of a Jewish conspiracy.

    • Giles Says:

      In August 1990, under Resolution 661, the Security Council imposed comprehensive sanctions upon Iraq, which it thought would only last a short time.
      It was not until April 1995 that the Security Council then reached a compromise with the ‘Oil for Food’ programme in exchange for oil.
      So you see, the people of Iraq were denied food and medicine for five years.
      That is where the figure of half a million deaths, mainly children, were caused by those UN sanctions.

  10. thefrollickingmole Says:

    So Giles, the sanctions were bad, the war was bad, and Saddams regime was bad.

    You see a little problem building up there?

    The sanctions were going to break down due to the bleating about “women and children dying”, funny how military aged men werent though…..

    Saddam would have rearmed and scored a major victory as the “strong horse” in the region…

    Bin Laden would still been just as offended at having US troops stationed near Mecca…

    By trying to bring in the sanctions as an example of the evil west youve effectively undermined most of your own arguement.
    That was done under the direct supervision of the UN, yet you still regaurd it as bad?

    You are a bit confused, you are sure the west is evil, but its a little harder when things like facts get in the way…

  11. Giles Says:

    I did not say the West is evil. That would be a blanket condemnation which would include myself. I would say that Tony Blair and George W. Bush are evil, if not, then their imperialist policies and desire to have control of the world’s oil reserves.
    When you say, “under the direct supervision of the UN” you have to consider what is meant by the Security Council. This is a small group of nations, led principally by the United States, that passes resolutions without the consent of all the other nations in the world.
    Look how Israel has breached countless UN resolutions (mainly to do with human rights abuses) over the decades and gets away with it.
    Are you aware that ‘regime change’ is contrary to international law? That conspiracy to wage war (as Bush and Blair did) was established as an international crime at the time of the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunals?
    The sanctions against Iraq did not break down for the simple reason that they had to be amended with the Oil for Food clause, because the sanctions were causing a humanitarian disaster and it was a devious method for getting oil out of Iraq on the cheap.

  12. johannes Says:

    > Are you aware that ‘regime change’ is contrary to international law?

    Contrary to your ultra-positivist views, international law allows for regime change in the case of a genocide or crimes against humanity. In fact, international law makes it a duty to interfere in the case of genocide, thats why the Clinton administration tried to avoid the g-word during the Rwandan massacre.

    Blairs true crime was that he led Basra slip into the hands of the various Islamist militias, see here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5735048/as-basra-slid-towards-hell-blair-looked-the-other-way.thtml , essentially trying Northern Ireland tactics in an entirely different environment and, predictably, failing.

    BTW, trying to blame the Iraq war on some sort of conspiracy and projecting dictatorial powers on Bush and Blair, which they didn’t had, is pointless at best, plain daft at worst, even the Gurniad knows: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/17/chilcot-inquiry-iraq-blair

  13. Giles Says:

    Blaming an illegal war on Bush and Blair is now the consensus, whether you like it or not.
    I repeat, war to effect ‘regime change’ is contrary to international law or we would all be invading countries simply because we do not like the incumbent rulers and regard them as ‘dictators’. I thought the big idea was that you changed governments through the ballot box.
    Bush and Blair conspired. It has all been revealed.
    Have you noticed how countries you like have governments and those you do not like have regimes?
    Well, they don’t fool me.

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:

      What a load of unmitigated horse pucky, a government i don’t like is a regime….bollocks to you.

      I think South Africa is an unmitigated cesspit and the murder capital of the world, yet it has a government.

      I think mexico is a lawless drug manufacurer and the 2nd murder capital of the world, yet it has a government.

      Zimbabwe, an autocrat that would kill his mother if she stood in his way of complete power, yes that is a regime

      Iran, theocrats that are prepared to gun down their own citizens to preserve their power base, yes that’s a regime.

      Your moral eqivalence is rather odious.

      You’re probably a Chavez fan, who was originally freely elected but has taken all steps to alter their constitution, rig ballots, jail dissenters, stifle a free media, socialise independent business, nationalise utilities (to their detriment) and destabilise the local region. This is where the ballot box became a regime.

      Spare me your grade school take on international politics, it is twee, trite, simplistic and infantile.

    • Giles Says:

      My, my … what an angrey little reactionary you are. Lots of name-calling but no substance.
      I wouldn’t fancy your chances on a live television debate.
      They would have you in a straitjacket after the first minute.
      You have just proved my point:
      That ‘government’ or ‘regime’ are the titles for the state of whichever nation you decide is good or bad respectively.
      And so the government of Saddam Hussein becomes a regime the moment the United States falls out with it.
      It was Saddam Hussein’s ‘government’ when the US was supplying him with arms.

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:

      Reactionary….I think not….you proved your point, pppfffftttt, you make no point, i merely clarified your blinkered take on the world as your infantile mind sees it.

      Obviously you don’t have the nous to do the comparison between chavez and hussein.

      Live television debate????? which is it son, drugs or alcohol, in a sad attempt to support your meandering rambling you reduce the debate to what would have to be the worst form of obfuscation i’ve seen let alone an infantile response. You’re trying to mount a circular argument to support your world view, don’t try to juxtapose legitimate government (with all its failings) as opposed to autocracy and state sancioned murder.

      I’ll reiterrate, Your moral eqivalence is rather odious.

      Name calling?????????, lift your game.

  14. Giles Says:

    That was a rant. Nothing more, nothing less.

  15. Giles Says:

    I always admired Saddam Hussein. He was a kind of benevolent dictator much admired by his people. He was also a great role model for Arabs and knew how to grow a moustache properly.
    What more do you want?

    • bingbing Says:

      He gassed his own people. He had state sanctioned rape and torture rooms. He lived the high life while his people suffered. He was a megalomaniac, narcissistic brute, much feared by his own people. He held onto his power by killing anyone who opposed him and/or razing their towns to the ground. There was no such thing as a free press or true democracy. Iraq lived under Saddam’s oppressive, dictatorial thumb. Good riddance to him.

      You have some sick role models, and seriously need your head straightened.

  16. Giles Says:

    No one is perfect.

    • bingbing Says:

      LOL. Now I’m convinced you’re taking the piss.

  17. johannes Says:

    > My, my … what an angrey little reactionary you are.

    Giles, YOU are the one who says that changing the status quo is illegal, regardless of the circumstances. You are the one with the Metternich- or Kissinger-like views, that established regimes should be stabilized, even when they kill people in six digit numbers. So how do you dare to call other people reactionaries?

    > I wouldn’t fancy your chances on a live television debate.

    Of course things like Galloway thrive on television. That doesn’t prove that their views have merit. It just proves that the media and cultural industry is full of superficial, alienated, authoritarian, manipulative people, and will sell everything that makes money, even Fascism.

  18. Giles Says:

    Galloway is not a Fascist, if that is what you are implying. He is a socialist of the old school, a non-Marxist and a practicing Roman Catholic.
    I have my own politicial views that do not always coincide with his.
    Nevertheless, he stands up for worthy causes at every opportunity and does not mind getting his hands dirty, so to speak.
    What gets me, is how some people are so selective when it comes to condemning ‘regimes’ and go for those that Israel dislikes the most.
    I thought I should mention that fact.

    • bingbing Says:

      I’ll throw you a bone, Giles. I take sides… unless, of course, I want both sides to lose.

      The Iran/Iraq war comes to mind.

      However, I usually want one side to win. South Korea vs North Korea. Israel vs Palestine, Hamas, Hezbollah. Syria, and Iran.

      US vs Saddam.

      Then there’s you being cool vs you being a fuckstain.

      Which side?

  19. Giles Says:

    The important thing to remember here is that I regard the United States and Israel as ‘the enemy’. You will not agree with this but you just have to accept it.
    I fully understand that there are others who adopt the opposite point of view.
    That is their choice. Arguing abouit it is also futile because both sides are passionate.

    • bingbing Says:

      True that. And you are my enemy.

      So waddya reckon?

      Should we go to war in an all out Internet assault?

      What would you recommend?

      Mutual facebook pages against each other?

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:

      ” I regard the United States and Israel as ‘the enemy’.” would you care to clarify your point, i don’t have to agree with you but neither do i have to concede to incoherant venom.

      If you feel your argument is futile then you have a self defeating point. A bit like the talitubbies i suppose, although i would never do you the disservice of accusing you of some sweet, sweet goat lovin, sans reach around.

      If Israel & the USA is your enemy then produce your argument. I will enjoy tearing you a new arsehole.

      Bing is polite, i try to be, but it’s the weekend and i have a case of ashai beer, so go for broke, make an ex-sailor happy.

  20. Giles Says:

    ” I regard the United States and Israel as ‘the enemy’” could not be more clear and does not require clarification. I take the side of the Muslim world. Why not? I admire Islam.
    Since the end of the Cold War we have seen the creation of a new set of values in global confrontation. I do not need to explain that.
    There is no venom in my position. No gratuitous abuse. I am stating my position. That is all.
    I did not say my argument is futile. I said it would be futile to argue. Why? Because your minds are set in stone. That is very obvious.
    Enjoy your beer.

    • bingbing Says:

      Took a while, but finally you out yourself. And even though the brutal dictator, Saddam, ran a secular regime, you’ll still support him because he was a muslim at heart.

      There is every bit of venom in your position, and your mind is truly poisoned. I’d tell you to go to hell, but you are already there.

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:

      Now i know you’re just taking the piss.

      Off you go…..on your way churl….

    • bingbing Says:

      If I disagree with having my every action governed by the ramblings of a crazed pedophile, then I suppose that would make me Islamophobic.

      Truth is, without citing figures, many Muslims are very decent people. It’s the fundamentalists who bug me, and there are too many of them.

      Regardless, enjoy the beach.

  21. Giles Says:

    Quote:”Took a while, but finally you out yourself. And even though the brutal dictator, Saddam, ran a secular regime, you’ll still support him because he was a muslim at heart”.
    Many people over the ages have admired Islam … they have been called Arabists. Conversion in European states continues unabated.
    Venom and poison? What are you talking about? There is nothing but sweetness and goodness in me. It is you who resorts to name-calling and other invective. Not me.
    It is you who is ‘outed’ because you expose yourselves as Islamophobic. You hate a religion.
    Maybe you hate religion per se.
    On a bright, sunny day down at the seaside it is hardly hell. In fact, it is positively heaven.

  22. johannes Says:

    > they have been called Arabists.

    An Arabist is either a scholar who studies Arab culture and language or an ethnic suprematist who thinks Arabs are superior to Blacks, Berbers, Persians, Kurds or Turco-Mongols, regardless of their relgion. A member of the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party, in spite- or rather because – of being an Arabist, will consider a Christian Syrian superior, a black African Muslim inferior.

    • Giles Says:

      You are slipping into pedantry.
      The former explanation is correct but the latter is a figment of your imagination. You are showing off here.
      An Arabist is a scholar of all things Arab (including Islam) in a very positive way, holding some sympathy or admiration.
      Sir Richard Burton is a prime example. Another is Wilfred Thesiger.

  23. Giles Says:

    The former interpretation would be correct. The rest is your own invention.
    I was referring to those who studied Arab culture (including Islam) through a positive interest.
    Sir Richard Burton was a prime example. Then there was Wilfred Thesiger. Great scholars … and Arabists.

  24. Giles Says:

    You are slipping into pedantry.
    The former interpretation is correct. The latter is entirely from your imagination.
    An Arabists is someone who takes a scholarly interest in Arab culture (including Islam) in a positive way.
    Sir Richard Burton was a prime example. Then there was Wilfred Thesiger. Great writers.

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:

      Dude, you’re just a google freak taking the piss. We all know it.

  25. Giles Says:

    I am not sure you do know. You are desperate to disparage but can not find the words.

  26. johannes Says:

    > An Arabists is someone who takes a scholarly interest in Arab
    > culture (including Islam) in a positive way.

    Not necessarily so. Most medieval Arabists like Ramon Lull studied Arabic with the aim of converting Arabs to Christianity.

    > Sir Richard Burton was a prime example. Then there was Wilfred
    > Thesiger.

    Those scholars who research and admire classical Islamic culture do necessarily oppose those mad Djihadist sects who want to destroy every form of art , music and literature in the ME. No serious scholar studies trash like telenovelas featuring the Protocols of The Elders of Zion, or Djihadist French or German Gangster rap, or the AlQ recruitment videos on YouTube.
    Do you think that Thesiger, who wrote the standard volume on the marsh Arabs and their culture, was a friend of the Ba’athist regime, which tried to exterminate the very same Marsh Arabs?
    BTW, the ecological havoc caused by the Ba’athist regime when it drained the Euphrat-Tigris marshes, changing, or rather destroying, the local climate not only of Mesopotamia, but also of Syria and eastern Anatolia, would have, IMHO, justified the destruction of the regime, even if there had been no other reasons for doing so (needless to say, there were many).

  27. johannes Says:

    > Then there was Wilfred Thesiger.

    Thesiger wrote the standard volume on the Marsh Arabs, and admired those people and their culture, which was destroyed in the most barbarous way by your mustachoid friend and his minions. Hypocrite!

  28. johannes Says:

    > but the latter is a figment of your imagination.

    This “figment of imagination” is the reason why Kurds were gassed in Ba’athist Iraq, Blacks are enslaved in Sudan and why Amazigh can’t get a driver’s license in Lybia.

  29. amazigh Says:

    Thanks for sharring importent information in this blog.
    It was very nice.


Well, SAY something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: