Dr. Frank's What's-it

I don't know a hell of a lot about Galloway, but I'm learning, thanks to your links.

I'd say that's a fair assessment.

This is smear.

Galloway is a "Stalinist?"

Galloway "supported" the Soviet Union to conquer Afghanistan?

Galloway "changed sides" over Iraq to be pro-Saddam?

Show me one statement from Galloway - one actual shred of proof - that any of the above smear is true. Otherwise, this should be taken for what it is - more uncorroborated media-whore smear from the far right.

From The Guardian:
He says his political position is no different now than it was then; that while there are so many politicians marching across the ideological spectrum without explanation, he has stayed put. What is that position? "I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe."

From Wikipedia:
In the late 1970s, Galloway was a founding member of the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq (CARDRI), which campaigned against Saddam Hussein's regime in response to its suppression of the Iraqi Communist Party. He was critical of America and Britain's later role in supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War and was involved in protests at Iraq's cultural centre in London in the 1980s.
Galloway opposed the 1991 Gulf War and was critical of the effect the subsequent sanctions had on the people of Iraq. He visited Iraq several times and met senior government figures. His involvement earned him the nickname the "member for Baghdad Central". In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein ostensibly "to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war". At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and infamously ended his speech with the phrase "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."[8]
In the speech, Galloway clearly is addressing Saddam in support of his fight against U.N. sanctions, the policies of the U.S. and U.K. governments, and Israel ("hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [preceding words in Arabic which mean until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]"). When later pressed to explain why he would make such a speech, he said that it was for the benefit of the Iraqi people, collectively, and expressed regret over the flattering remarks within the speech directed at the Iraqi dictator.
In 1999, Galloway was criticised for spending Christmas in Iraq with Tariq Aziz, the then Deputy Prime Minister. In the May 17, 2005 hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Galloway admitted to "many" meetings with Tariq Aziz, "more than ten," and characterized their relationship as "friendly". An archived version is available. [9]

i dont get it.

The Morning Star, né the Daily Worker, was founded as the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and it's no great stretch (or smear) to describe it as "Stalinist." Of course "Stalinist" is (justly) a pejorative term now, and those who support or admire Stalinist regimes and their Great Leaders tend to try to figure out other ways to refer to their Stalinism. The famous Galloway quote produced by Larry represents one of the clumsier and more candid of such attempts.

Galloway was certainly a supporter of the totalitarian Soviet police state/Imperium while it existed and would support it today if there were a Soviet state to support. Where he and SWP/RESPECT (who self-identify as Trotskyists of some variety) fall specifically within the complex of sectarian hyphenated -ists and -ites of Communist theory, or whether Galloway belongs there at all, is hard to say and is a distinction without a difference anyway: he's basically an opportunist who is broadly amenable to whichever type of totalitarian flavor suits his immediate purposes. (His game plan: figure out what the American policy is, and oppose it, and the more outrageous the bedfellows, the better.) Stalinism here, fascism there, Castro, Saddam, Milosevic, and so on. A Stalinist by any other name still more or less resembles George Galloway, even if he (just barely) shrinks from the term. The best you can say about him, with regard to his Stalinism, is that it may not be particularly sincere.

Regardless, in this case, the "smear" comes not from the "media-whore far right" but from the media-whore reformist anti-communist pro-liberation British left.

I assume you mean that someone advocates a tyranical government which murders large numbers of innocent people to acheive a social goal, when you call someone a "Stalinist."

You don't really think Galloway is in favor of such things, do you?

As for Iraq, Galloway's record of opposition to the Iraqi regime, as your own sources indicate, goes back further and is more genuine than that of the U.S. and U.K. governments.

If Galloway is guilty of what critics accuse him - giving limited support to a bad government which shares a common goal at the time (in Galloway's case, the common goal being elimation of sanctions on Iraq) - such tactics are, in any case, no different than what apologists for the U.S. and U.K. governments routinely defend as necessary realpolitik.

(Come to think of it, Galloways actions re: Saddam are probably not even minutely as bad as that of the U.S. / U.K governments. What's worse, saying Saddam is a swell guy, or arming him with biological weapons?)

Galloway doesn't advocate "a tyranical government which murders large numbers of innocent people to acheive a social goal"?

What are talking about? He says quite forthrightly that he supported the Soviet Union.

And as the earlier article pointed out, he was more than happy to murder thousands of Islamists in Afghanistan to further the cause of Soviet imperialism.

Would, then, saying you "support" the United States in 1776 mean you advocate a whites-only apartheid state with legalized slavery, no female or minority suffrage, engaged in willful genocide of native races?

A fair reading of Galloway's comments, I think, clearly shows that Galloway meant he supported the Soviet Union's purportedly egalitarian economic policies and the fact that it served as a political and military counterweight to the United States.

This does not mean Galloway supported each and every excess of the Soviet regime, or each and every objectionable element of its system.

While I respectfully disagree with Galloway's advocacy of the USSR's economic model, I don't think the assertion that peace was actually furthered by the USSR's existence (as a couterweight to US power) is unreasonable.

None of this, by the way, discredits any of Galloway's criticism of the U.S. or U.K. government's foreign policy in the Middle East. It is an attempt to discredit the messenger as an irrational hater of the West without addressing the criticism itself.

Yes, apart from the mass murder and what not, the chap had some splendid ideas, what?

I think what our friend is trying to say is that any enemy of Israel can't be all bad.

As usual, you are deliberately distorting what someone says (this time me, not George Galloway) as a cheap means of discrediting the messenger and deflecting attention from the actual issue.

If everything I've said amounts to "any enemy of Israel can't be all bad", then everything you've said amounts to "any critic of Israel or the West is a a terrorist, commie, Nazi.

Er, excuse me, an "'Islamist' / 'Stalinist' / 'Anti-Semite'."

When you develop an argument a little more honest and less far-fetched than "Don't believe George Galloway, he likes mass murder," maybe you'll make more sense to people who can think.

AU:

A bit of Galloway's autobiography via Christopher Hitchens:

The state of Kuwait is "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole, stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion." (Kuwait existed long before Iraq had even been named.) "In my experience none of the Ba'ath leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." The post-Gulf war massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that involved massive violence on both sides." Asked about Saddam's palaces after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of state has a fair bit of real estate herself." Her Majesty the Queen and her awful brood may take up a lot of room, but it's hardly comparable to one palace per province, built during a time of famine. Discussing Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--the very question he had refused to answer when I asked him--he once again lapsed into accidental accuracy, as with the Stalin comparison, and said that "as the martyred know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." That's true enough: It was indeed Iraq's money, if a bit more than Saddam's mouth.

The man is revolting. Watching his targetting in the UK of two female jewish MPs has been distasteful. But of course, he's not an anti-semite ...

And I think you'll find the biggest critics of Mr Galloway are to be found on the left.

'''Kuwait existed long before Iraq had even been named.'''''

Not so.

Kuwait, like Iraq, like Jordan, like Saudi Arabia, and like each and every one of the small Arab Gulf States, was a political construct of the British Foreign Office, carved out of the former Ottoman Empire. "Kuwait" and "Iraq" were never seperate, independent countries, but were rather part of various Persian, Arab, and Ottoman empires, usually together.

The borders of each of the above countries were crafted by the British.

The leaders of each of the above countries were chosen by the British.

This is a matter of fact and is not controversial.

Moreover, Kuwait and Iraq speak the same langauge
and have the same religion. Objectively speaking, Iraq's claim to Kuwait is probably as strong as England's claim to any portion of Ireland.

""""In my experience none of the Ba'ath leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews."""""

What's wrong with this statement? What evidence is there that Ba'athists harbored inherent antagnosim towards Jews?

"""""The post-Gulf war massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that involved massive violence on both sides.""""""""

This is actually true. Do you know anything about Iraq? By the way, guess who was arming Saddam with biological weapons when he was gassing the Kurds? That's right, America.

'''''''Asked about Saddam's palaces after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of state has a fair bit of real estate herself."'''''''''

That's a good point. Galloway's right again.

''''''''Discussing Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--''''''

Don't you think "suicide murderer" is a bit of a loaded, biased term? Armed Palestinian groups attacking Israeli troops and civilians are no more "murderers" than armed Israeli groups attacking Palestinian civilians. We make direct payments to Israel's military by the billions. What's the qualitative difference?

And finally, none of this makes Galloway an advocate of mass murder.

This is smear intended to discredit the messenger without addressing the message.

AU:

Wow! That was thorough! I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the history of the middle east - i'm sure your knowledge is far greater than mine (although trotting this out: "[...] guess who was arming Saddam with biological weapons when he was gassing the Kurds? That's right, America -" does grate. We all know this. Some of us are happy that the policy has changed and some, erm, aren't.)

As you were so thorough in your response what interested me was what you chose to pass over -

'''''''Asked about Saddam's palaces after one of his many fraternal visits, he remarked, "Our own head of state has a fair bit of real estate herself."'''''''''

That's a good point. Galloway's right again.

No, it's a way of Galloway avoiding the question and you too avoid the point being made which is:

"Her Majesty the Queen and her awful brood may take up a lot of room, but it's hardly comparable to one palace per province, built during a time of famine."

You ask: Don't you think "suicide murderer" is a bit of a loaded, biased term?

Actually it's completely accurate and descriptive. Does such a person commit suicide? Of course they do. Do they murder? Well, as they tend to target civilians, yes they do. What is your problem with this term? Surely we can agree to condemn this activity without quibble?

In an earlier post you say:

Galloway is a "Stalinist?"

Galloway "supported" the Soviet Union to conquer Afghanistan?

Galloway "changed sides" over Iraq to be pro-Saddam?

Show me one statement from Galloway - one actual shred of proof - that any of the above smear is true. Otherwise, this should be taken for what it is - more uncorroborated media-whore smear from the far right.

This is a matter of record and not controversial. This is a famous Galloway quote:

“Did I support the Soviet Union? Yes, I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life.”

Google is your friend.

best wishes ...

Come on, Arya. Did you really just accuse someone of being "biased" in favor of civil society? That is, "biased" in favor of people riding on trains, buses and planes, eating pizzas in restaurants, honeymooning at resorts, working in office buildings, and dancing in discoteques? And of being "biased" against nihilistic psychopaths who want to kill indiscriminately because God supposedly told them to?

I remain biased against being blown up by these freakazoids, but that doesn't mean I don't look forward to your next batch of relativistic analogies for the thinking man. Condemn the Bali bombing? Then you might as well condemn Abraham Lincoln! That sort of thing...

*adds "freakazoids" to list of favourite words*

This just in:

Latest Galloway quote:

"Syria is exposed to foreign pressure because she represents the last castle of the Arab dignity and the Arab rights."

'''''Come on, Arya. Did you really just accuse someone of being "biased" in favor of civil society? '''''

No, I did not.

But it's telling that you categorize one party to a conflict as "civil society" and another group as "nihilistic psychopaths," based on nothing.

I assume you are referring to Israel and Palestine. What makes Palestinians "psychopaths" and Israelis "civil?"

Branding one party to a war as "murderers" (i.e., Palestinians) while simultaneously referring to the murder record of the other party (i.e., Israel) as "civil" is extremely biased, yes.

It is very callous and insulting that you would make the argument that killing Israelis eating pizzas in restaurants is morally worse than killing Palestinians eating kabobs in restaurants.

"Syria is exposed to foreign pressure because she represents the last castle of the Arab dignity and the Arab rights."

You have to wonder why Syria, which is more secular, modern, and democratic than, say, Saudi Arabia, is villified and sanctioned as a terrorist threat while ultra-hardline Muslim societies under total dictatorships (like Pakistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are given money and arms by the United States and its allies.

Syria, for all of its one-party excesses, which I do not like, is virtually the only Arab government which has not been overtly installed (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, all the Gulf States, etc.) or bought off (i.e., Egypt) by the United States or its allies.

The United States is not pressuring Syria for failing to be a democracy, or for not reigning in religious hardliners. It's pressuring Syria because of its refusal to lets its foreign policy to be sold out against the long term interests of its people.

Arya,

Thank you for the pizza/kabob comparison. However, I'm not sure why "killed in a kabob" yields zero Google search results, whereas "killed in a pizza" gives 47 results. I tried spelling kabob several ways. I think what kind of impresses people about your posts is that you manage to come across as both glib and wooden. What creeps people out, me anyway, is that you seem way too eager to set up 1-to-1 correlation between every kind of horror. It's as if a vegetarian said, "You know, I don't eat kabobs because I don't like how meat is processed in factories," and then you immediately said, "But you're eating a pizza! That has cheese! That comes from cows! It's all the same!" If your posts weren't so uniformly reflexive (in two senses), you'd be more convincing...

Floyd,

The point is that Israelis have deliberately killed Palestinian civilians, out of revenge or malice, as much as the Palestinians have done to Israelis.

So what makes one side "civil" and the other "psychopaths?"

'"In my experience none of the Ba'ath leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews."

What's wrong with this statement? What evidence is there that Ba'athists harbored inherent antagnosim towards Jews?'

Well, they publicly hung some Jews on some trumped up charges and did say they were going to destroy Israel, but I have no idea whether that antagonism was "inherent".

"The point is that Israelis have deliberately killed Palestinian civilians"

False.
I mean it probably has happened once or twice, but it's hard to see how that can be "the point".

"Armed Palestinian groups attacking Israeli TROOPS AND CIVILIANS are no more "murderers" than armed Israeli groups attacking Palestinian CIVILIANS."

And here you're actually implying that Israelis target mainly civilians whereas Palestinians target mainly troops.
Naughty, naughty!
BTW, what the heck do you mean by "armed Israeli groups"?

It takes remarkable audacity to assert that deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians, who have died in numbers far greater than Israeli civilians, has "probably happened once or twice."