George Galloway attacked
Discussion
JensenA said:
sjn2004 said:
Justayellowbadge said:
sjn2004 said:
Talking of Karma, Joan Rivers nearly popped it yesterday during an operation on her throat. Sadly she survived.
Unpleasant. http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/07/joan-rivers-rants-pa...
I also think SJN'S comment was somewhat naive and definitely unnecessary; but Joan Rivers comments were 100 times worse.
Interesting also that Joan Rivers comments have been 'defended' as being understandable "because she's Jewish". Jewish/Muslim Israeli or Palestinian it's all irrelevant. Rant, promote, complain, highlight or debate is fine but condoning violence of any degree against innocent people is utterly and morally wrong. That applies here equally.
whoami said:
Grumfutock said:
Oh now that news has cheered me up this morning!
Why?I don't support violence on the streets and assaulting people but if it is going to happen then this man has had it heading his way for a very long time.
Guam said:
Exactly, many of us on here have disagreed quite aggressively (including you and I) should we expect to be meting out violence to each other at the next Black Tie and Pie, or mobbing up at the ace cafe over some thread we have become pissed at. That however unlikely is where that behaviour ultimately leads us.
Our ability to accept the rights to express opposing viewpoints is what makes us civilised.
Yep. 100% agree. Our ability to accept the rights to express opposing viewpoints is what makes us civilised.
Nothing wrong with disagreements, even arguments. But when it moves on to punching those we disagree with, well, what's the point?
George Galloway speech 7th July 2005 (slightly modified)
"I condemn the act that was committed this evening. I have no need to speculate about its authorship. It is absolutely clear that a Jewish or Israeli person is responsible. I condemn it utterly as a despicable act, committed against an arrogant idiot, without warning, on the street. Let there be no equivocation: the primary responsibility for this evening's assault lies with the MP for Bradford's anti everything speeches. The MP's spokesman, in an otherwise fine speech, described today's events as "unpredictable". They were not remotely unpredictable. Our own village idiot predicted this and warned the Mr Galloway that if he does [visit Iraq] he would be at greater risk from facing the consequences such as the one that he has suffered this evening... Despicable, yes; but not unpredictable. It was entirely predictable and, I predict, it will not be the last."
"I condemn the act that was committed this evening. I have no need to speculate about its authorship. It is absolutely clear that a Jewish or Israeli person is responsible. I condemn it utterly as a despicable act, committed against an arrogant idiot, without warning, on the street. Let there be no equivocation: the primary responsibility for this evening's assault lies with the MP for Bradford's anti everything speeches. The MP's spokesman, in an otherwise fine speech, described today's events as "unpredictable". They were not remotely unpredictable. Our own village idiot predicted this and warned the Mr Galloway that if he does [visit Iraq] he would be at greater risk from facing the consequences such as the one that he has suffered this evening... Despicable, yes; but not unpredictable. It was entirely predictable and, I predict, it will not be the last."
Colonial said:
Guam said:
Exactly, many of us on here have disagreed quite aggressively (including you and I) should we expect to be meting out violence to each other at the next Black Tie and Pie, or mobbing up at the ace cafe over some thread we have become pissed at. That however unlikely is where that behaviour ultimately leads us.
Our ability to accept the rights to express opposing viewpoints is what makes us civilised.
Yep. 100% agree. Our ability to accept the rights to express opposing viewpoints is what makes us civilised.
Nothing wrong with disagreements, even arguments. But when it moves on to punching those we disagree with, well, what's the point?
Camlet said:
The world is a place of wonder. But we know it's also a place of untold suffering. Humans can't seem to create one thing without the other. And it's the ordinary families who get caught up in the middle and suffer. And that's neither fair nor right. We need leaders regardless of what views they have to push for moderation and dialogue, to confront the issues placed by the extremes on either side to deliberately stop discussion. Extremists feed off each other comfortable in the knowledge someone else usually gets hurt.
GG is a poor leader. He loves the media attention an extreme position brings. I'm sure he sincerely believes he's right to speak out, but he knows moderation requires significantly harder work and doesn't grab headlines.
This should have been the last post on this thread with the exception of a few "+1" comments, it summed up the situation perfectly and also summed up human nature and how those with the desire for a legacy and power will steamroller the people who are just happy to get on with life with minimum impact to others.GG is a poor leader. He loves the media attention an extreme position brings. I'm sure he sincerely believes he's right to speak out, but he knows moderation requires significantly harder work and doesn't grab headlines.
Guam said:
Perfect illustration, we both agree on our right to toally disagree with each other, long may it continue 
BTW O/T my local council backed down on that attempt to dump their responsibilities on me we discussed a while back
Score one for the little guy (well not so little if my waistline is anything to go by but you get my point)
Indeed. Nice to bring a piece of peace to the internet. We both respect each other for having a different opinion, but we both agree to defend the right of each other to have that. BTW O/T my local council backed down on that attempt to dump their responsibilities on me we discussed a while back
Score one for the little guy (well not so little if my waistline is anything to go by but you get my point)
Good news - sometimes you have to wonder what they are thinking. I've got a doozy of a situation where Council has lost a previously issued consent and are now fining the owner for works carried out. This is going to be a nightmare. Gotta wonder what they are thinking sometimes.
Colonial said:
Yep. 100% agree.
Nothing wrong with disagreements, even arguments. But when it moves on to punching those we disagree with, well, what's the point?
I agree a physical attack on a person with whom one disagrees is wrong.Nothing wrong with disagreements, even arguments. But when it moves on to punching those we disagree with, well, what's the point?
However I also feel that the type and tone of language one uses,whatever platform one uses,should also be subject to criticism.
It is especially noticeable on internet forums,such as this,when complete strangers abuse each other,showing not the least respect or civility.
When the freedom of speech is abused it is an attack on all our rights.
I quote the adage "The pen is mightier than the sword".
Grumfutock said:
whoami said:
Grumfutock said:
Oh now that news has cheered me up this morning!
Why?I don't support violence on the streets and assaulting people but if it is going to happen then this man has had it heading his way for a very long time.
There's little or no disagreement on that.
However, battering someone just because you disagree with what he says is merely the language of the inarticulate.
whoami said:
He's an obnoxious tit.
There's little or no disagreement on that.
However, battering someone just because you disagree with what he says is merely the language of the inarticulate.
I agree, however I also believe in consequence of action. This is not the "language of the inarticulate" but the result of his endless courting of controversy.There's little or no disagreement on that.
However, battering someone just because you disagree with what he says is merely the language of the inarticulate.
In 2005 Mr Galloway referred to Iraq insurgents as "martyrs". How would we of reacted if this had been the father of one of our soldiers killed by the "martyrs over there?
On reflection, it might have appeared from my earlier posts that I was condoning the assault on Mr Galloway and whilst I won't be shedding any tears for this manipulative, divisive, anti-Semite, I share the view of other posters on here that whilst he might be intensely disliked, to assault an elected MP merely for his views, is a step too far.
Still, it might teach his own supporters in the Respect Party not to act in a similar vein to their political adversaries.
Still, it might teach his own supporters in the Respect Party not to act in a similar vein to their political adversaries.
Mr Daytona said:
On reflection, it might have appeared from my earlier posts that I was condoning the assault on Mr Galloway and whilst I won't be shedding any tears for this manipulative, divisive, anti-Semite, I share the view of other posters on here that whilst he might be intensely disliked, to assault an elected MP merely for his views, is a step too far.
Still, it might teach his own supporters in the Respect Party not to act in a similar vein to their political adversaries.
You know what Daytona ,I don't even know whether he is an anti Semite ,albeit his speeches give that impression.Still, it might teach his own supporters in the Respect Party not to act in a similar vein to their political adversaries.
I think he is one of life's chancers,an opportunist with no moral compass who has hitched his wagon up to woo the Muslim vote.
There is no subtlety in his dialogue just a constant outpouring of bile and divisiveness.
His personal life and media choices also displays his lack of gravitas or humanity.
Mr Daytona said:
On reflection, it might have appeared from my earlier posts that I was condoning the assault on Mr Galloway and whilst I won't be shedding any tears for this manipulative, divisive, anti-Semite, I share the view of other posters on here that whilst he might be intensely disliked, to assault an elected MP merely for his views, is a step too far.
Still, it might teach his own supporters in the Respect Party not to act in a similar vein to their political adversaries.
Half the Muslim people (vague estimation) are Semites, how can he therefore be anti Semitic?Still, it might teach his own supporters in the Respect Party not to act in a similar vein to their political adversaries.
It bugs me so much when people state anyone against Israel is anti semetic. Simple political attempt to deflect and bring religion into it.
Edited by Boshly on Saturday 30th August 16:08
Boshly said:
Half the Muslim people (vague estimation) are Semites, how can be be a to semetic?
It bugs me so much when people state anyone against Israel is anti semetic. Simple political attempt to deflect and bring religion into it.
As it is when anyone says anything to support Israel and they are instantly called a Zionist.It bugs me so much when people state anyone against Israel is anti semetic. Simple political attempt to deflect and bring religion into it.
Boshly said:
Half the Muslim people (vague estimation) are Semites, how can be be a to semetic?
It bugs me so much when people state anyone against Israel is anti semetic. Simple political attempt to deflect and bring religion into it.
It bugs me when a geezer gets so upset about semantics that he has to post about it on a forum.It bugs me so much when people state anyone against Israel is anti semetic. Simple political attempt to deflect and bring religion into it.
Most people understand the common usage of anti Semitic .
If I wished to be pedantic I might comment that your first sentence is virtually unintelligible,but I don't,so I won't.
Grumfutock said:
whoami said:
He's an obnoxious tit.
There's little or no disagreement on that.
However, battering someone just because you disagree with what he says is merely the language of the inarticulate.
I agree, however I also believe in consequence of action. This is not the "language of the inarticulate" but the result of his endless courting of controversy.There's little or no disagreement on that.
However, battering someone just because you disagree with what he says is merely the language of the inarticulate.
In 2005 Mr Galloway referred to Iraq insurgents as "martyrs". How would we of reacted if this had been the father of one of our soldiers killed by the "martyrs over there?
The majority of us are not ruled by our testosterone when we disagree with someone's world view.
Half the population will be in hospital by now.
That's why we use 'reason' and communication to either persuade people or disagree with them.
"They had it coming" is a poor excuse to break the laws of any civilised society, and as for the emotive example you gave, it's just as poor as "they had it coming".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff