Another Galloway Outrage

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by tomahawk6, May 26, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    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.
  2. Why waste your time giving him more publicity?, thats all his out to get!
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Galloway has supported topping Phoney Tony? More power to his elbow, I say!!!

  6. 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.
  7. To make the question more clear I would like to ask:

    Were numerous attempts (by CIA) to kill Fidel Castro moral?
  8. Can I answer that one? Er, NO!
  9. 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.
  10. [​IMG]








    [​IMG] Yeah, not strictly a dictator, but still worth a mention IMHO.

    Oh, I'm sorry... what were you saying again?
  11. 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!!!!

  12. Which probably explains why,

    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:

    But there again, you can just go back on your word, ignore the "will of the UN" - and then call for its reform.
  13. 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
    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....
  14. 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.