# MP Galloway "morally justified" assassination of Blair



## SofiaB

*MP George Galloway has said it could be "morally justified" to assassinate Tony Blair, but stressed he was not calling for his death.*
 
Should people in public life, who are listened to by millions make such statements?
Whether or not you agree with Tony Blair are you horrified by this statement or is it acceptable. There are laws in the UK against inciting violence. Does his little disclaimer at the end relieve him of this crime? In the current climate of terror should we be concerned? Many people know Galloway as a controversial person who, says and does many questionable things, but has he gone too far, this time? Or is this an example of free speech?
More here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5020222.stm


----------



## cuchuflete

In a similar example of free speech, television preacher--and supposedly "Christian"--Pat Robertson said...



> "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said Monday.


 about Hugo Chavez.  
Robertson later denied having said it, but it's available on many websites on videotape!

Maybe Galloway has converted to Robertson's version of Christianity?


----------



## Brioche

To coin a phrase, George Galloway should not be given the oxygen of publicity.


----------



## la reine victoria

*



MP George Galloway has said it could be "morally justified" to assassinate Tony Blair, but stressed he was not calling for his death.

Click to expand...

* 
No one in their right mind would want to see Tony Blair, or anyone else, assassinated/murdered. Yes, Blair is a much hated figure in the UK. His willingness to join with Bush in the invasion of Iraq was opposed by millions. I have heard that Blair is much admired in the U.S.A. - something I cannot understand.  

The judgment of Blair and Bush will surely come from the God in whom they both so fervently believe.  

We may criticise and rant all we wish. George Galloway, widely regarded as a corrupt scumbag, an egomaniac, an apologist for tyranny, a supporter of jihad and known to be nostalgic about Stalinism, has used freedom of speech to say what he has about Blair.

What utter claptrap! Of course he has every right to say what he did. But Blair must be ousted from office and public life via the ballot box and not by the "morally justifiable" means declared by Galloway who, in my opinion, should have kept his thoughts to himself. 

Honi soit qui mal y pense. Evil to him who evil thinks.



LRV


----------



## lizzeymac

I don't think anyone "admires" him so much as they find him pleasant & well spoken - quite a contrast from Dubya.  
There were even a few snippy characterizations during his last visit - he as described as "trailing after the President on a tour of the Rose Garden" & a few other comments in that vein, and comments on his his tendency to act injured rather than to respond intelligently to criticism.


----------



## maxiogee

My mother had an expression for use when she read something disagreeable to her in the newspapers —> Paper never refused ink.
In other words, the most mind-numbing crud will get printed.
Similarly I would posit that George Galloway, and others of his ilk, never refused publicity.
By this I mean that, knowing that almost anything he says will get printed if he makes it _outré_ enough, he will say the most amazing piffle.


----------



## natasha2000

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> George Galloway, widely regarded as a corrupt scumbag, an egomaniac, an apologist for tyranny, a supporter of jihad and known to be nostalgic about Stalinism, has used freedom of speech to say what he has about Blair.
> 
> LRV


 
I don't know anything about Mr. Galloway, but if he is what LRV says, then I am not surprised... People with these characteristics think they have the right to decide about the lives of other people.

Although, I must say that there were times I wished Miloshevich was dead...
not that Blair and Miloshevic are comparable, but in certain circumstances, one just cannot avoid the feeling...


----------



## la reine victoria

You are by no means alone Natasha.

Look what happened to the evil Chowchesku and his wife.






LRV


----------



## natasha2000

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> You are by no means alone Natasha.
> 
> Look what happened to the evil Chowchesku and his wife.
> LRV


 
I wish it had happened to SM some 15 years ago. My life would have had a completely different direction.


----------



## natasha2000

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> This must be the classical comparison of apples and oranges taken to extremes!


 
I did not try to compare anything and anyone. I just wanted to point out that sometimes you just can't avoid wishing a dead of someone.


----------



## ceci '79

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I did not try to compare anything and anyone. I just wanted to point out that sometimes you just can't avoid wishing a dead of someone.



Sorry, Natasha: I had deleted my previous post before noticing your reply. Sorry: I had completely misunderstood you!


----------



## natasha2000

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> Sorry, Natasha: I had deleted my previous post before noticing your reply. Sorry: I had completely misunderstood you!


 
No problem... These things happen..


----------



## Outsider

I had read that Mr. Galloway was considered an extreme person, but never knew why. Now I do.


----------



## natasha2000

I took a better look at the title of this thread and my attention was atracted by the sintagm "morally justified assassination".

Although, as I already said, sometimes is hard not to wish the death of someone, I still think there is NO such thing as morally justified assassination. Simply, the words _morally __justified_ and _assassination_ don't go together.

I do not know anything about this Mr. Galloway, and I do not like almost anything what Mr Blair does (as far as international politics, national politics is not of my concern and besides, I don't know much about it), but this statement tells a lot about Mr Galloway. I mean, what kind of a person is able to justify assassination? That person for sure lacks of any moral, so how can a person who lacks of moral speak about something morally justified????


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I mean, what kind of a person is able to justify assassination? That person for sure lacks of any moral, so how can a person who lacks of moral speak about something morally justified????



There are many who would have been very prepared to assassinate Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, and many others.


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> There are many who would have been very prepared to assassinate Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, and many others.


 
Maxiogee, as I already mentioned, I myself wished the death of Slobodan Miloshevich from the bottom of my heart, during many years... And SM was more or less something like Sadam, Castro or Hitler, since he made miserable not only other people, but his own people at the first place.

But is it morally justified? Just to kill them, like rats?
Then, what makes us better than them?

I just say thanks to God that on the day when people moved away SM, they did not just "went off" in their heads and linched him, although they had every reason to do it. The history, and the concience (if they have any) will judge them.


----------



## emma42

I can completely sympathise with Natasha.

I have to say that George Galloway has disappointed me.  I used to know him quite well and, like many on the left, he was villified for espousing many socialist principles.  There have also been various underhand and unfair campaigns against him (as there were with Arthur Scargill). The right wing press in this country do not like socialism at all and tend to descend to "dirty tricks".  I do believe that he was (and may still  be) a true socialist, committed to fighting for justice for all.  However, I think on this occasion he has let his gob run away with him, and has regretted it, but has felt unable to say that he has been an idiot.  I also agree that he has an enormous ego, something which I do not appreciate.


----------



## cuchuflete

At what point, if ever, does one's moral sense allow for the justifiable killing of a butcher?

Remember Pol Pot in Cambodia?  How many hundreds of thousands of deaths did he cause?  I've read that his "reforms"
included the killing of between four and five *million* people.

In a theoretically neat scenario, he would have been removed from power and put in prison.  In reality, his early assassination
might have saved millions of innocents from slaughter.


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> I can completely sympathise with Natasha.
> 
> I have to say that George Galloway has disappointed me. I used to know him quite well and, like many on the left, he was villified for espousing many socialist principles. There have also been various underhand and unfair campaigns against him (as there were with Arthur Scargill). The right wing press in this country do not like socialism at all and tend to descend to "dirty tricks". I do believe that he was (and may still be) a true socialist, committed to fighting for justice for all. However, I think on this occasion he has let his gob run away with him, and has regretted it, but has felt unable to say that he has been an idiot. I also agree that he has an enormous ego, something which I do not appreciate.


 
He is a socialist? Then I think that he stuck somewhere in history... Fight for rights of working people by the means of violence was popular at the beginning of the LAST century... Nowadays, real socialists and other kinds of lefties embraced exclusively political fight, rejecting any kind of violence...


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> At what point, if ever, does one's moral sense allow for the justifiable killing of a butcher?
> 
> Remember Pol Pot in Cambodia? How many hundreds of thousands of deaths did he cause? I've read that his "reforms"
> included the killing of between four and five *million* people.
> 
> In a theoretically neat scenario, he would have been removed from power and put in prison. In reality, his early assassination
> might have saved millions of innocents from slaughter.


 
I would like to reply to this, and I find this topic very interesting, but I am a little bit in doubt if this thread is exclusivelly on Mr Galloway or on "morally justified" assassinations in general. I really wouldn't like to be deleted as off topic.
Please, clarify my doubts. Thanks in advance.


----------



## emma42

I said I certainly thought he was in the past.


----------



## MarcB

Let me start of by saying assassination is not morally justified. As has already been mentioned many people have committed crimes against humanity. If one believes in capital punishment in any form, like the extreme cases Hitler etc. don’t we agree that there should be a tribunal and all of the facts examined? I also do not think Mr. Blair is in the same league as Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Milosovich et al.
 I Support free speech but if the UK has laws against inciting people to violence as mentioned, are we foolish enough to believe this is not a case of that.
Grant you we can all have a slip of the tongue. I feel he should have retracted the statement and made a point that it should not happen, remember millions have heard what he said and someone must like him since he was elected and reelected.
If the man/woman on the street makes such a statement only those in earshot will hear it. A public person has more influence and they should measure their words carefully. There is a saying that free speech does not include yelling fire in a crowded theatre if there is not one. I think a serious sanction should be applied to him.
Remember I said if one makes such a statement he should be allowed to retract it with a meaningful apology.


----------

