Another Galloway Outrage

#3
tomahawk6 said:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article601356.ece

Galloway stated that it would be morally justified for Blair to be killed by a suicide bomber. Excusing the assasination of an elected leader is an outrage,but not shocking as Galloway has made a career out of supporting dictators.
Why waste your time giving him more publicity?, thats all his out to get!
 
#4
He likes the sound of his own voice, but is he not breaking one of Tony's many laws if some lady was warned by a policeman for wearing a T-shirt with"Bollocks to Blair"
surely encouraging assassination by the Muslimm looney faction is much more serious.
 
#5
Outrage is a bit over the top isn't it?

After all, he was merely making a sober point. And qualified it by insisting he wasn't calling for such an attack and would report it to the authorities if he got wind of it.

He said he could understand it, which I could if for example, my family had been wiped out in the name of 'democracy'.

How many assassinations have the CIA been involved in down the years? Less mock shock horror please.
 
#6
Galloway has supported topping Phoney Tony? More power to his elbow, I say!!!

MsG
 
#7
Bugsy7 said:
Galloway has supported topping Phoney Tony? More power to his elbow, I say!!!

MsG
Topping Tony by means of a terrorist attack. I don't care how much you or I hate Blair, another terrorist attack in Britain is not on. Have a word with yourself.
 
#8
To make the question more clear I would like to ask:

Were numerous attempts (by CIA) to kill Fidel Castro moral?
 
#10
Can someone define terrorist attack for me, as it pertains to the assassination of a particular, targeted individual? Please take care to make the moral and ethical distinction between whatever course of action you are thinking of and, oh I don't know, dropping 4 x 2000lb JDAMs into a densely populated Baghdad suburb as the opening salvo of a war of dubious legal standing.

For all his faults, Galloway is actually making a decent philososphocal and legal point. UN Resolution 2649, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1970, “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognised as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal”. In May 2003, the UN declared the invasion of Iraq “illegal” and in contravention of the UN Charter. In other words, the Iraqi people have an inalienable right to resist foreign occupation. In a poll conducted by the MoD in August of 2005, 82% of respondants opposed the occupation. I'm sure you can all to the maths on that one.
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
...but not shocking as Galloway has made a career out of supporting dictators.
















Yeah, not strictly a dictator, but still worth a mention IMHO.



Oh, I'm sorry... what were you saying again?
 
#12
Death_Rowums said:
Bugsy7 said:
Galloway has supported topping Phoney Tony? More power to his elbow, I say!!!

MsG
Topping Tony by means of a terrorist attack. I don't care how much you or I hate Blair, another terrorist attack in Britain is not on. Have a word with yourself.
Sorry, Deathy, but I'd love to see this happen! It's at least what he deserves after all he's done to the Armed Forces under his command!!!!

MsG
 
#13
crabtastic said:
UN Resolution 2649, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1970, “affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognised as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal”. In May 2003, the UN declared the invasion of Iraq “illegal” and in contravention of the UN Charter. In other words, the Iraqi people have an inalienable right to resist foreign occupation.
Which probably explains why,

BBC said:
Blair urges United Nations reform

Text here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5020358.stm
Bloody nuisance that UN, isn't it? Just when you expect some respect, it kicks you in the goolies...

Funny how he hasn't made that speech in the UK. Probably remembers this little reposte:

BBC Interview said:
JEREMY PAXMAN: But Prime Minister, this is, you say, all about a man defying the wishes of the United Nations. You cannot have it both ways. If one of the permanent five members of the Security Council uses its veto and you, with your friend George Bush, decide somehow that this is unreasonable, you can't then consider yourself absolutely free to defy the express will of the Security Council. What's it for otherwise?

TONY BLAIR: First of all, let me make two points in relation to that. Firstly you can't just do it with America, you have to get a majority in the Security Council. Secondly, because the issue of a veto doesn't even arise unless you get a majority in the Security Council. Secondly, the choice that you're then faced with is this. If the will of the UN is the thing that is most important and I agree that it is, if there is a breach of Resolution 1441 which is the one that we passed.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Are you saying there's already an authorisation for war?

TONY BLAIR: No, what I'm saying is this.
But there again, you can just go back on your word, ignore the "will of the UN" - and then call for its reform.
 
#14
Does UNR 2649 apply to occupations recognised by the UN Security Council?

If the occupation (as opposed to the invasion) is illegal, then the UN has tied itself in knots by approving UNSCRs 1483 and 1511: 1511, amongst other things, says
13. Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to the successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph 7 above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for
Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure;

14. Urges Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations inundate, including military forces, to the multinational force referred to in paragraph 13 above...
Which would seem to suggest that the occupation is viewed as being part of the process by which the Iraqi population will regain self-determination....
 
#15
KGB_resident said:
To make the question more clear I would like to ask:

Were numerous attempts (by CIA) to kill Fidel Castro moral?
Castro was an unlected Military dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat.
Tony for all his sins is hardly a Military dictator and a landslide election is not comparable to a coup.
 
#16
Perhaps the real question should be...is Blair a war criminal?

Lets not forget the magnitude of what he did. He was complicit in an unprovoked war of aggression on a sovereign state, an act for which we sent men to the gallows in 1946 at Nuremberg so there is historical precedent.

An argument could certainly be made that Blair is a war ciminal who deserves execution.

Thats one way of looking at it.
 
#18
Pillager said:
KGB_resident said:
To make the question more clear I would like to ask:

Were numerous attempts (by CIA) to kill Fidel Castro moral?
Castro was an unlected Military dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat.
Tony for all his sins is hardly a Military dictator and a landslide election is not comparable to a coup.
Pillager!

Rt.Hon.learned.mr.Blair is a democratically elected leader toward British people. As I'm aware Iraqis didn't take part in British elections. So from point of view of many Iraqis, mr. Blair is a leader of foreign invadors that oppress and kill them (I repeat, from point of view of many Iraqis). Of course, Iraqis simply don't understand that the British are in Iraq to help them. However, it is up Iraqis to decide.

As for CIA then it is not a Cuban organisation. The Cubans of course have natural right to remove their leader if they think that his is a dictator. But other countries and their secret services haven't right to act as agents of Cuban people. It is amoral.
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
Pillager said:
KGB_resident said:
To make the question more clear I would like to ask:

Were numerous attempts (by CIA) to kill Fidel Castro moral?
Castro was an unlected Military dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat.
Tony for all his sins is hardly a Military dictator and a landslide election is not comparable to a coup.
Pillager!

Rt.Hon.learned.mr.Blair is a democratically elected leader toward British people. As I'm aware Iraqis didn't take part in British elections. So from point of view of many Iraqis, mr. Blair is a leader of foreign invadors that oppress and kill them (I repeat, from point of view of many Iraqis). Of course, Iraqis simply don't understand that the British are in Iraq to help them. However, it is up Iraqis to decide.

As for CIA then it is not a Cuban organisation. The Cubans of course have natural right to remove their leader if they think that his is a dictator. But other countries and their secret services haven't right to act as agents of Cuban people. It is amoral.
Furthermore, although this sort of illegal behaviour would be dressed up as 'freeing the people of Cuba', it would be nothing lesss than murder through self interest.
 
#20
Archimedes said:
Does UNR 2649 apply to occupations recognised by the UN Security Council?

If the occupation (as opposed to the invasion) is illegal, then the UN has tied itself in knots by approving UNSCRs 1483 and 1511: 1511, amongst other things, says
13. Determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to the successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph 7 above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary conditions for the implementation of the timetable and programme as well as to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for
Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure;

14. Urges Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations inundate, including military forces, to the multinational force referred to in paragraph 13 above...
Which would seem to suggest that the occupation is viewed as being part of the process by which the Iraqi population will regain self-determination....
Difficult to say, but its by no means unprecedented for two resolutions to appear in conflict with each other.

One argument (and I'm trying to figure this out as I go, through a bourbon haze) is that 1511 works through Ch. 7 of the UN Charter which pertains to the need to maintain international peace and stability. 2469 works through (I think) understandings of the Fourth Geneva Convention. 1511 includes nothing regarding the legitimacy of the war itself (not that odd, considering that it was drafted by the US and UK) but instead refers almost exclusively to the principles of Ch.7. As such it is primarily a pragmatic resolution that pretty much says "Here's the situation as it stands now. The CPA is in place and it's a lot better than having marauding hoards spilling all over the country and the region". To that extent, it would appear that the members of the Security Council adopted a "lesser of two evils" approach to the resolution.

Note also, in the premable to 1511:

“
Underscoring that the sovereignty of Iraq resides in the State of Iraq, reaffirming the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own political future and control their own natural resources, reiterating its resolve that the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly, and recognizing the importance of international support, particularly that of countries in the region, Iraq’s neighbours, and regional organizations, in taking forward this process expeditiously
The question then becomes, who speaks for the Iraqi people? The first substantive government has only just been formed. I hope to God they can find a way of pulling themselves out of this mess, but right now I don't see how. Despite a couple of proclaimations that have caught a lot of us off-guard, regarding withdrawal of US/UK forces, the Iraqi government knows it is almost entirely dependent on the the occupation for their survival. Secondly, there is a great deal of controversy regarding the legitimacy of the Iraqi government and the method by which they were elected and ministers were appointed. One could possibly draw on a loose analogy of the Vichy government in WWII France, which also claimed to be the de jure French government to see that just because other states recognise a government, it doesn't necessarily follow that the country's citizens will. Whether you like it or not, the Iraqi government runs the risk of being seen as a puppet government in some circles.

I hope this has made at least some sense. I'll check it in the morning when I'm no longer p1ssed.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Top