lush Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Im not a great political fan of his, but i do love his honesty, in particular his attack upon new labour. On newsnight tonight (i just caught the last minute or so) he accussed the bbc presenter of living in new labours `bubble`. meaning, what the bbc say and do, is mainly CONTROLLED by (what some would call, fascists) the government. Its a breathe of fresh air to have an MP who tells it like it is. I think, but im not sure, that he was saying that the murders upon the british public on 07/07, or as its now known `bloody thursday` was somewhat justifyable considering the war in iraq. can someone confirm that for me? His MP status was won on the back of the Islamic community.
Steven Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 I am not sure I want to agree with you or George Galloway, but certainly his point of view needs to be strongly heard. Gavin Essler blew it at the end.
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Author Posted 8 July 2005 Yeah he did, and thats what made me post this thread. The bbc live in this `bubble` of government, whereby they are prodomanetly dictated to. Thats very wrong, because the bbc are suppossed to represent ALL of us, from far left to far right, from Islamic extremists to non belivers, gays strays and straights.
stez Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 i have a lot of time for george galloway, not that i always agree with him, but he's obviously a very clever man who gives better than he gets usually. as for the bbc being in new labours (very 2001) bubble i rememeber the same thing being said in the early 90's saying they were in the tories bubble and no doubt the same has been said in decades past!
Wilson Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Now I used to hate George Galloway (you naturally would if you read The Sun daily) but the stuff he says is completely correct - the government then try to keep him quiet by linking him with Saddam.
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Author Posted 8 July 2005 Science, thats because the destiny of the bbc is in the hands of whichever political party is government.
Thracian Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Yeah he did, and thats what made me post this thread.The bbc live in this `bubble` of government, whereby they are prodomanetly dictated to. Thats very wrong, because the bbc are suppossed to represent ALL of us, from far left to far right, from Islamic extremists to non belivers, gays strays and straights. 135071[/snapback] Make no mistake the people at the BBC are politicals as are so many in journalism and they are controlled like puppets. Make them all declare their allegiance I say. Cos when we call this country a democracy and we have this abomination posing as independent it makes me sick. Will they declare?. What have they got to hide? Fancy having to pay to be brainwashed.
stez Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Science, thats because the destiny of the bbc is in the hands of whichever political party is government. 135084[/snapback] can't blame thm really who decides their charter?
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Author Posted 8 July 2005 Now I used to hate George Galloway (you naturally would if you read The Sun daily) but the stuff he says is completely correct - the government then try to keep him quiet by linking him with Saddam. 135082[/snapback] He was with sadam in a big facking way, but on many ocassions (including Ch5`s the wright stuff recently) he admitted he was wrong. strangely tho, hes now trying to stop the radical new labour party from war on Islam and oil-4-money in Iraq.
Wilson Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 yes he did many things with saddam (im contradicting myself now ) but lots of evidence was planted against him to make it look worse.
stez Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 yes he did many things with saddam (im contradicting myself now ) but lots of evidence was planted against him to make it look worse. 135091[/snapback] one thing pretty much for certain he didn't flog saddam any bombs
stez Posted 8 July 2005 Posted 8 July 2005 Now who would do such a thing like that... 135095[/snapback]
lush Posted 8 July 2005 Author Posted 8 July 2005 yes he did many things with saddam (im contradicting myself now ) 135091[/snapback] My hat is off in respect that you can admit that. GOOD man.
lush Posted 9 July 2005 Author Posted 9 July 2005 Ive just heard that george said last night that the britian have now paid the price for the Iraq war. 2 questions: 1. Is george guilty of defending the Islamic insurgents, by saying such a thing? Hes a british MP. 2. Is bliar guilty, by forcing these Islamic insurgents to bomb us, because they were defending their land from bliars war?
Thracian Posted 10 July 2005 Posted 10 July 2005 Ive just heard that george said last night that the britian have now paid the price for the Iraq war.2 questions: 1. Is george guilty of defending the Islamic insurgents, by saying such a thing? Hes a british MP. 2. Is bliar guilty, by forcing these Islamic insurgents to bomb us, because they were defending their land from bliars war? 135177[/snapback] Not that I particularly give a damn what he says but Galloway is expressing an opinion. If you are going to defend the notion of free speech you can't just expect free speech that you agree with. Even views that a diametrically opposed to yours or, even opposed to all logical thinking, bear analysing and considering. I might not agree with a lot that Galloway says or implies but I defend his right to say it. The Blair question is different. Did he REALLY have a legal mandate to go into Iraq?
lush Posted 12 July 2005 Author Posted 12 July 2005 But Thracian, do you think that george is defending the Islamic murderers? Think its fair to say that blair is guilty, so when will this criminal be punished?
Guest Posted 12 July 2005 Posted 12 July 2005 Think its fair to say that blair is guilty, so when will this criminal be punished? 136847[/snapback] Guilty to you, but the Attorney General says not.
TrickyTrev Posted 12 July 2005 Posted 12 July 2005 He's a twat who cares about his own self impoirtance more than the interests of the peoiple he claims to represent. However, he is not justifying or condoning the attacks in any way shape or form.
Guest Posted 12 July 2005 Posted 12 July 2005 He's a twat who cares about his own self impoirtance more than the interests of the peoiple he claims to represent. However, he is not justifying or condoning the attacks in any way shape or form. 136873[/snapback] Lush only likes him because he verbally attacked Labour.
lush Posted 12 July 2005 Author Posted 12 July 2005 Think its fair to say that blair is guilty, so when will this criminal be punished? 136847[/snapback] Guilty to you, but the Attorney General says not. 136868[/snapback] Guilty to millions of us (maybe not you, you seem to like illegal war), his employers.
lush Posted 12 July 2005 Author Posted 12 July 2005 He's a twat who cares about his own self impoirtance more than the interests of the peoiple he claims to represent. However, he is not justifying or condoning the attacks in any way shape or form. 136873[/snapback] Lush only likes him because he verbally attacked Labour. 136875[/snapback] george tells the truth, mostly, and labour dont like it.
Thracian Posted 13 July 2005 Posted 13 July 2005 But Thracian, do you think that george is defending the Islamic murderers?Think its fair to say that blair is guilty, so when will this criminal be punished? 136847[/snapback] George says they were "somewhat justifiable". Not ambiguous that. Believes they were in part justified if that is truly what he said. If quoted correctly I could never agree with his argument but I would still defend his right to voice whatever view he likes. The dilution of free speech is a greater attack on our nation and what we stand for than any bomb. There's a BP thread for instance which has attrated nearly 2,000 viewers but less than 300 replies. Is that because people are disinterested, bury their heads in the sand, unable to form a sound opinion or afraid? Free speech (already diluted) is your lifeblood. Best to remember that and defend it.
Thracian Posted 13 July 2005 Posted 13 July 2005 Think its fair to say that blair is guilty, so when will this criminal be punished? 136847[/snapback] Guilty to you, but the Attorney General says not. 136868[/snapback] But is the Attorney General truly independent? I don't pretend to know the legal answers but where was the mandate? Convince me.
Guest Posted 13 July 2005 Posted 13 July 2005 Guilty to millions of us (maybe not you, you seem to like illegal war), his employers. 136898[/snapback] Where have I said that?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.