Justified Revenge According To George
No, not that one, the Galloway one.
Well, as long it's logical and explicable, why not?
Interesting to read that quote again, tonight, within a few minutes of reading Cal's "Why's Man" post, just below this one. It's relatively easy to understand why Galloway wants to read a particular meaning into the London bombings, don't you think?
The Independent article ends with the following two paragraphs, which I personally don't think belong there, given that I believe this is supposed to be a news story, rather than an op-ed piece. (I could be wrong there; I'm not as familiar with The Independent as other British newspapers. If it is just commentary, that's a different story.) However reprehensible I might find Galloway's statements (or even actions--I'm getting there), I don't like this particular type of heavy-handed stealth-connecting of "dots" in news stories.
Still, I'm going to quote them, simply because they instantly brought to my mind Cal's "Kicking and Screaming" post of a week ago, which talked about how some on the Left embrace certain autocrats, while rapping leaders in the West. (Surely Galloway's statement regarding Blair's assassination by a suicide bomber constitutes "rapping," at the very least?) Plus, I couldn't see writing a whole separate post referencing these paragraphs separately.
The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.
In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"
Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."
Well, as long it's logical and explicable, why not?
Just hours after four bomb attacks killed 52 people on London's transport system last July, Mr Galloway said the city had "paid the price" for Mr Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Ten thousand Osama bin Ladens have been created at least by the events of the last two years," he told MPs in the Commons that day.
Interesting to read that quote again, tonight, within a few minutes of reading Cal's "Why's Man" post, just below this one. It's relatively easy to understand why Galloway wants to read a particular meaning into the London bombings, don't you think?
The Independent article ends with the following two paragraphs, which I personally don't think belong there, given that I believe this is supposed to be a news story, rather than an op-ed piece. (I could be wrong there; I'm not as familiar with The Independent as other British newspapers. If it is just commentary, that's a different story.) However reprehensible I might find Galloway's statements (or even actions--I'm getting there), I don't like this particular type of heavy-handed stealth-connecting of "dots" in news stories.
Still, I'm going to quote them, simply because they instantly brought to my mind Cal's "Kicking and Screaming" post of a week ago, which talked about how some on the Left embrace certain autocrats, while rapping leaders in the West. (Surely Galloway's statement regarding Blair's assassination by a suicide bomber constitutes "rapping," at the very least?) Plus, I couldn't see writing a whole separate post referencing these paragraphs separately.
Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island's Communist dictator, Fidel Castro - whom he defended as a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys".
Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced.
