Galloway: "It's not the Muslims who are sick. It's Bush and Blair and Berlusconi who are sick."

Wait a minute.

"We believe in the Prophets, peace be upon them. He believes in the profits, and how to get a piece of them. That's his god. That's his god. George Bush worships money. That's his god - Mammon."

So Galloway's a Muslim?

"champion dhimmi Galloway"

He is not a dhimmi, he is a moslem, I am sure of it. Despite their marital difficulties he is married to Yasser Arafat's niece. No woman of a family with that high a profile in the Islamic world, (not just related to Arafat but a kinswoman of Al Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, Nazi colleague of H&H, inspector of gas chambers etc) is going to be allowed to marry an infidel. I don't care how much he hedged his bets with his then Scottish constituents by showing his face at the local Catholic church, we all know that war is deceit, and Kitman rules.

The idea that Muslims have some kind of sickness in their bodies, which must be cured, which is the idea behind Bush, behind Mr. Blair, and behind Mr. Berlusconi's government in Italy - It must be resisted. It's not the Muslims who are sick. It's Bush and Blair and Berlusconi who are sick. It's not the Muslims who need to be cured. It's the imperialist countries that need to be cured.

Galloway is a 'useful idiot' for the Islamists. But useful idiots beware, what is your future when your usefulness expires?

The Pedestrian Infidel
my brand new blog:
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com

As hard as I try to understand the likes of Galloway, and Ward churchill, I simply can't fathom their thinking.

Assuming he was right and the western civilized world where the sick ones,what would Galloway have us do to remedy are affliction? Should we just role over and play the dhimmi? Should we just continue to be passive in defending our values while tolerating Ideologies that threaten are very foundations.

Is Galloway somehow trying to convince us that Islam is better than a free and open democracy? Would we want to see our youth steeped in a fanaticism that leaves them devoid of any creative thinking and that controls every action, and inaction of their being ? Does Galloway ever take the time to differentiate between these two contrary value systems? Maybe he is hoping that that the umma will make him the Caliphate of Britain?

Is Galloway and people like Ward Churchill so buried in passed wrongs and transgressions that they carry around such a heavy bag of collective guilt that they are unable to look up and see what is good about their country? Thus are they are driven to the conclusion that we simply don't have the right, or the ability to do what is right because of our past?

Of course that kind of paralysis would endanger all of us in trying to make a better world. In a simple context,all of us have experienced growing pains,and yes we have made mistakes, but we have learned from those mistakes and we are the better for it.

Does Galloway and his ilk simply have no concept of what fundamental Islam is all about or do they simply choose to ignore its history and the tenets of the Quran and the hadith?

Mammon defined
http://www.occultopedia.com/m/mammon.htm

His wife filed for divorce. He is an appeaser. You'll never see him in a mosque. UK Muslims despise him. What do they know that we don't?

Jerusalem - a "beautiful Arab daughter."

Really perhaps the sickest lying chin-dribbling drivel I've ever read.

Galloway, you opportunist anti-Semitic piece of camel dung, you need a bath. And a brain transplant.

Galloway's is not the language of a Westerner or non-Muslim. This imagery, these appeals, are those of one Arab Muslim to other Arab Muslims.

There is the Old Grievance (a false grievance, a hollow grievance, but an Old Grievance to be nurtured and kept eternally fresh): the reference to the so-called Sykes-Picot agreement (an old staple of Arab grievances, which was entirely about the jockeying between the English and the French, and one is surpised Galloway failed to mention the supposed "promises of McMahon to the Arabs" -- promises that were deliberately misunderstand by the Arabs, promises which in any case McMahon, had he made them and not carefully exempted certain Ottoman vilayets including the territory of "Palestine"," he lacked the authority to bind anyone other than himself, and promises which McMahon himself insisted, a letter to The Times on July 27, 1937, were never meant to apply to "Palestine" -- and McMahon himself was far from being sympathetic to the Zionists.

And then there is this "two beautiful Arab daughters" imagery for Jerusalem and Baghdad. He abandons the rhetorical figleaf of so many "Christian" haters of Israel or apologists for Islam (they overlap so noticeably it is hard to tell them apart -- that which describes Jerusalem demurely, though innaccurately, as a "city holy to three faiths" (i.e., one that deserves to be "internationalized").

If Jerusalem is a "beautifu Arab daughter" (Galloway has apparently not read any descriptions of the ruin and desolation into which Jerusalem, and all of Palestine fell, under Arab and Muslim rule -- he really should read a little history, in one of those odd moments when he is not busy counting his cash). In Galloway's Arab echo-chamber, the Jews have no claim to the city which they created and which helped to create the -- Jerusalem. Nor do the Christians have a claim to the city where Christianity originated, and where all the mysteries of Christ's life took place. The city "holy" to Judaism and Christianity, and which is connected to Islam only in the sense that the early Muslims wished to establish a claim to it, and so decided that it was from there that Muhammad must have made his Night Journey (the "miraj") on his steed Al-Buraq in an aller-retour to the Seventh Heaven, an event which, of course, unlike the Jewish and Christian claims firmly grounded in history (the history of both the Jews, and early Christians, and of Christ himself, in Jerusalem), depend instead in one's belief in Muhammad from Mecca ascending into the heavens, in a 24-hour journey, from the "farthest mosque" -- al-masjid al-aksa -- mentioned in the Qur'an, a "farthest mosque" that in the view of a certain Umayyad caliph in Damascus (who may have had much to do with the creation of early Islam), was to be located right on top of the Temple Mount -- very conveniently, as a symbol of Islamic appropriation of both the stories (much distorted), and the famous figures (described in Islam as earlier prophets) and of all the sites that were important to the preceding monotheisms, whose adherents were the very peoples, more advanced, more settled, more civilized in every way, first conquered by the newly-islamized, formerly pagan Arabs, who found this "Islam" a belief-system that both justified, and promoted, their own conquest.

Despite George Galloway's bluster and flyting and litigation, neither of these "two Arab daughters" is likely to fulfill his vision. Despite Sharon's folly in Gaza, Jerusalem is not about to be surrendered by those who have the strongest claim, in every sense, to it, and who alone have provided the full religious freedom that the Arabs and Muslims so clearly prevented during their physical possession of the Old City. As for Baghdad, that once-Persian city may, if things keep going as they seem likely to go, be Shi'a once again, and possibly become part of Persia (perhaps as a consolation prize for the loss of Iranian Kurdistan to a new Kurdsih state), just as this so-called "Arab daughter" Baghdad had anciently been, and though Nadir Shah tried to make it part of the Persian Empire again, and failed, who knows what will happen in the future?

That 1847 border between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire, the one established according to the Treaty of Erzrum that was brokered by the Russian government, may yet be realigned -- with consequences for Sunni Arabs, Arabic-speaking Shi'a, Persians, and above all, if the whole thing goes as it may, for Infidels as well.

One more thing.

It is amusing to consider how those responsible for the entry on Baghdad (or "Bagdad") in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica --Sir Henry Cheswicke Rawlinson (who has his own entry in the Encyclopedia), and Reverend John Punnet Peters, did not mince words in the modern way: "The Jews constitute the wealthiest and most intelligent portion of the population...Next to them in enterprise and prosperity are the Persians. The porters of the town are all Kurds, the river-men Chaldean Christians...[the officials in Bagdad] and the Turkish government in general are intensely unpopular aong the Arabs, an unpopularity increased by their religious differences, the Arabs begin as a rule Shi'ites, and the Turks Sunnites."

One wonders how many in the Pentagon began their study of Iraq with the Encyclopedia Britannia, 11th edition, and then moved on to the Letters of Gertrude Bell, or Philip Ireland's book on Iraq, or Elie Kedourie's essays. Or did they skip all that, and jump ahead to busy consultants, busily offering them 3-5 page (or even ten pages, or even 20 pages) of those god-dammned "Executive Summaries" of material that takes time to understand and assimilate, and can only come out of a detailed knowledge, not a Bright-Young-Washington-Aide's Knowledge, of men and events. The model of the busy executive's aide-produced "memorandum on corporate strategy," or some outside consultant's grotesquely-overpaid and blown-up report on what any fool can see as obvious problems -- this, and the kind of mental training that those who presume to write and pontificate about "international relations" (which is not something arcane orhieratic, but accessible to all who can read and think) is the wrong model. Churchill did not have a little "executive summary" by which he made judgements about Mespotamia in the 1920s, or later. He knew what Islam, and Muslims, were about He had a direct and variegated and historically-informed, and self-assured knowledge about men and events. He was not the eager-beaver product of a graduate program in Area Studies or "Middle Eastern affairs."

Think of Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Pipes, two years ago in The Boston Globe, correctly noted that Wolfowitz may have been a "brilliant systems analyst" but knew nothing about the influence of culture, of history, on peoples. Perhaps he listened rapturously to Bernard Lewis. Perhaps he read, with great enthusiasm, Patai's "The Arab Mind." Perhaps he listened to all the promises of the plausible Chalabi and others like him. One does not know if Wolfowitz himself was a great enthusiast of this "all people want freedom" nonsense, this Democracy-Is-On-the-March nonsense, this "Islam is fundamentally peaceful and tolerant" nonsense, this "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations" nonsense. Perhaps he was just one more participant following a general party line that was promoted by those who misunderstood Islam, and misunderstood Iraq -- the two things that, above all other things, had to be understood.

It would hardly be the first time. Think of the collapse of the Soviet Union. What Western fools rushed in with their Instant Capitalism -- just sell-off everything, and the Free Market Will Work Its Magic. No attention to ingrain Russian ways, no attention to the opportunity for human nature -- radix malorum cupiditas est -- to take over, no understanding of how, for example, the historical experience of Russia, with far longer period of Communism than in such eastern European countries as Poland, made for a different situation.

And with officious, self-important students from the Irwin-Corey School of World's Greatest Authorities, such people as the deplorable Jeffery Sachs, helped get Russia into a mess that was not inevitable, and that the Russians did not deserve. And the terrible damage that was done in a delicate moment to Russia, a Russia that might have continued on the tolerant, liberal, path of the Yabloko Party, the path envisioned by Alexander Yakovlev and Yelena Bonner and millions of others, has led instead, to a place where some are nostalgic for Stalin, and many support, or at least do not know how to successfully oppose, Putin, in his kgb-isant policies, nor oppose the others, those standing beside, or before, or behind him.

Galloway is no useful idiot. Useful idiots are useful idiots because they are blissfully unaware of the truth.

No, Galloway is a thoroughly corrupt piece of scum. He and his wife, true to her uncle Yasser's form, used a charity created in the name of some young cancer victim and used the money to help buy a villa in Spain.

Yes, Hugh... ...a great imitation of Lord Haw Haw indeed, but with the oratorial stylings of Peter Sellers' "Pearly Gates" gangster character with the thinnest veneer of "sophistication" thrown in.

It's the imperialist countries that need to be cured.
Sounds like a call for war against his own nation to me.
Here's hoping that he falls down a few flights of stairs. (Accidentally of course)

Point taken Waterdragon. Lord Haw-Haw, agent of the Islamic Axis

Waterlilly: "Useful idiots are useful idiots because they are blissfully unaware of the truth."

King: Goes both ways, Waterlilly. You are unrobed in your own brand of idiocy and don't even know it. The only place you look good in your robe is right here.

"It's the imperialist countries that need to be cured."

True.

I am highly skeptical that these words came from Galloway. "rape of 2 beautiful duaghters" does not sound like the language of Galloway. Of course it may be a case of "when in Rome" but it just doesn't sound like the language of Galloway although he no doubt does hold these feelings. He is a complete @rse of a man.

Yes, but Hugh, given that these "bullet-heads" are the ones we're dealing with, how would you suggest we extricate ourselves from the mess? Intelligence and historical awareness does not get you high office in America these days. Is there a Churchill waiting in the wings? And could he be named Sec'y of State - much less be elected President?

Just askin'.

This Galloway's a real peach, isn't he?

If he's so bent on patronizing the Islamists, why doesn't he give up the political seat he's been passing gas on for far too long now, and move to the Middle East so he can become a house boy for Islamic royals.

This is one sick bird. Hell, the Labour booted him if that tells you anything about his views.

This site is totally astonishing for me. I’m a young Asian girl, born and brought up around Muslims. I am constantly coming up against the brick wall mentality...that if you criticise Islam you must some how be a racist. Yet I am not white, and can quite easily pass of as an Arab, so how does the criticism of `racist apply to me.

I am constantly being told how Islam is a religion of peace, but I reject that from the bottom of my heart. My best friends of the Jewish faith tell me how they are terrified to let anyone know they are Jews. I find this horrifying, considering the fact that to date I have never ever met a Muslim that is the remotest bit afraid of telling the whole world what they are.

Being Asian I find it all the more harder to criticise Islam...however as far as I am concerned this is simply an ideology that must must must be challenged. We in the west do enjoy many freedoms, not least of all our freedom to express ourselves in literature, art, and in science. That are the very mark of a tolerant and
Progressive society.

Before everyone on this forum condemns all Muslims as preaching hate please be aware that are (very far and few between) some very very brave and courageous Muslims that questioned the very core of Islam. As a result their lives are now a living nightmare, yet they continue to challenge and argue against the bigotry, and bloody mindedness Islamic ideology. Namely Salam Rushdie and Irshad Manj.... both of whom have had many death threats placed on their heads.

There is only one thing a Muslim hates more than an infidel...and that is a former Muslim that has renounced the faith. They will burn in hell and suffer at torturous fate far more than any infidel. Frightening.

You cannot equate Ward Churchill with Galloway.
Ward Churchill is simply an opportunist with liberal enablers.

jay

Sophia, may I offer you an admiring embrace, and perhaps a kiss? It takes courage to think as you do, let alone say it, in your environment. You deserve your web-name "Wisdom", but may I suggest an even more suitable one? "Arete" - nobility.

Galloway meant what he said. He is a traitor and an enemy. But I would like to disagree with what many people have said here: he is not comparable to Lord Haw-Haw. Lord Haw Haw, William Joyce, was a violent and extreme but perfectly honest Fascist who was wholly upright and coherent throughout his misguided life. He had developped his sense of grievance when driven out of his native country, Ireland, in the course of the Irish war of independence. When 1939 came, he went to Germany and volunteered his services to the Nazis, unasked and practically unknown; and it was they who placed him among several English-speaking radio announcers, where he proved particularly able. When his side lost, having gained practically nothing from his support, he gave himself up, stood his trial with dignity, and, to quote R.L. Stevenson, was hanged like a gentleman. For honesty and dignity, this Fascist traitor cannot be compared to Galloway.

Galloway is more like Pierre Laval: a failed plebeian politician, full of resentment against democracy and his colleagues, collaborating with the enemies of his country and his civilization and shamelessly adopting their murderous ways, trying to worm himself even further in their murderous government. If he is ever hanged for the traitor he is, the last thing we can look forward to is the simple dignity of a William Joyce.

Sophia is absolutely right. I live in Germany, and one of the leading critics of Islamism here is Prof. Bassam Tibi, who was born in Syria and is a Muslim. In the Netherlands, the leading anti-Islamist activist is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. When I studied in Egypt, I met many Muslims who were extremely critical of Islamism, but they did not dare to say so publicly. We have to encourage secular and non-Islamist Muslims to join the battle.

KingofUsefulIdiots:

Noam Chomsky's opinions notwithstanding, western capitalist powers are not the only imperialists around.

As for idiocies and blindness, your moral equivalences are in a class of their own.

Waterlilly: "As for idiocies and blindness, your moral equivalences are in a class of their own."

King: Moral equivalences = moral consitency & intellectual honesty which help formulate a balanced viewpoint. These are my tools to crack the nut. Being a Jew who subscribes to the same poison that the Nazis used to rid Europe of all Jews, based on religion, I would expect a higher regard for moral consistency from you. You've been nothing but a blind sheep eating up the hate and offering no sort of solution. From one Jew to another - SHAME ON YOU. YOU CONTINUE TO DISAPPOINT....

King Schwanz:

Stop lying! You are as 'jewish' as an Eskimo!

You are a Shiite who has his coffee-filter drilled into the brain with 2 inch screws!

Still not using UHU?

Sophia

I dont know if you live in England, but all my 'Asian' friends, who are of the Hindu and Sikh faith, have really educated me on Islam and the hirtory and practice of Islam. And what you say chimes with them too - that it is considered bad manners to tell the truth about Islam in public, no matter how much Pakistanis themselves have contempt for Hindus and Sikhs, they must not rock the boat, for fear of making Muslims seem even more isolated and away from the norm.

But that is just not sustainable anymore, not after 7/7. I have told my Indian friends that if they speak out, people will listen to them, people will be willing to hear about Islam from those whose history and culture have grown in close proximity to Islam, who know instinctively about the nature of Islam, its falsities and fatuities, its expansiveness and aggression, its supremacism and intolerance, its desire to usurp all other religions.

When Hindus and Sikhs can rid themselves of this 'Asian Community' nonsense the whole thing becomes much clearer. Because all the lies told about the reasons for Muslim 'alienation' are rendered hollow by the simple fact that Hindus and Sikhs, who also face a degree of marginalisation and prejudice in British society, do not resort to militancy and fascsim and violence as a result of this - and they do integrate into British society whilst maintaining their culture and religion.

Please do post more here and let us know your thoughts.

King:

Once again you raise the raise the false analogy with the Holocaust, completely ignoring the fact that the Jews of Eastern Europe were peaceful people who were maligned for absolutely no reason other than that they remained faithful to Judaism and were subsequently rounded up and murdered. By contrast there exists a substantial faction of Muslims who are committed to the restoration of the Caliphate and the universal imposition of Sharia and are perpetrating mass murder all over the globe. They very specifically cite their holy books, chapter and verse, as justification for what they do. And for every jihaddist bearing arms, there are the financers and moral supporters behind them, raising billions of dollars to that end. There is no moral equivalence here. None. Stop dishonouring the memory of your people and mine.

Your "moderate Muslims" are deflectors, not reformers. My opinions on Islam and terrorism are largely drawn from reading opinions expressed in the liberal Arab media, primarily translations provided by MEMRI. A small and growing body concurs with the censure Islam is getting and see it as helpful to the cause of reform; saying there is no problem, or minimizing the problem as you do, does not. Irshad Manji didn't call her book "The Trouble with Islam" because it's a catchy title, but because there is so much truth in it.

BTW, KingCoward -- you declined to provide your e-mail address on a thread not long ago in an exchange with your buddy ia769, alluding to concerns about harassment. Ia has left his address here many times, apparently without any incident. If you stopped posting here, nobody would seek you out.

KT, I asked you before - but you apparently didn't see my question or just didn't want to answer...did you come here from Conyer's blog?

Once again you raise the raise the false analogy with the Holocaust, completely ignoring the fact that the Jews of Eastern Europe were peaceful people who were maligned for absolutely no reason other than that they remained faithful to Judaism and were subsequently rounded up and murdered.

The faithfulness of the Jew was irrelevant. The Nazi ideology was about race. Anyone with three Jewish grandparents was covered under the Nuremberg laws. Even if those grandparents had converted to Christianity. Even if the parents were atheists. Even if the individual himself voted for Hitler, it would not save him. Hitler to exterminate the Jewish race in order to maintain the "purity" of "Aryan blood". An individual's beliefs were not the issue.

The discussion of Islam on this site is not about race. It's about ideas. Nobody that I've seen has said Muslims are corrupting the west with inferior DNA. I'm not saying I agree with all or even most of the comments that appear on this site, and I've argued against ridiculous ideas like "deport all Muslims" before. However I don't think the Nazi analogy stands up to scrutiny.

Stop lying! You are as 'jewish' as an Eskimo!

Terminator, you re not fair to Jews!

Norwegians had their Quisling, the Brits had their Lord How-How (and now have that walking latrine Galloway), French had their Vichy; shouldn’t the Jews also be allowed to have their own version of a traitor - like that pompous, boring megalomaniac bloated with trite slogans, silly jingles and despicable lies?
Yes, I mean Kink Skunk.

A thought occurred to me; someone who calls himself “King” most probably suspects he has a soul of a flunky. What a pathethic dunce…

King: Moral equivalences = moral consitency & intellectual honesty which help formulate a balanced viewpoint.

In other words, past excesses forgive present excesses -- the sort of lazy thinking that believes that the best way to cure past discrimination is with present discrimination.

Your intellectual laziness is readily apparent, especially your use of moral equivalency and false comparisons that rely on straw-men rather than fact or logic.

The biggest flies in your ointment is that you ignore history (Muslims were behaving poorly in the same eras you like to cite as the rationale / excuse for badly behaved Muslims), human nature (the measures will never be equal, thus closing the books, so to speak) and, frankly, your comments smack of the sort of logic that comes up with the pseudo-intellectual drivel such as the notion that blacks can't be racist, even when they publish hate literature and kill a person for the unforgivable sin of being white.

King: Moral equivalences = immoral stagnation & intellectual dishonesty which help formulate an unbalanced viewpoint. These are tools that crack my nuts.

Forgive me, I just couldn't help myself.

King Tut Tut-

Now your Jewish?

You should watch classic '50's film "The Three Faces of Eve". Or the later movie "Sybil".

You've got more personas going than a kaliedoscope jammed into an id.

(Did someone force you to kiss a corpse once? Or is it just a dream for the future?)

King Tut Tut-

Now your Jewish?

You should watch classic '50's film "The Three Faces of Eve". Or the later movie "Sybil".

You've got more personas going than a kaliedoscope jammed into an id.

(Did someone force you to kiss a corpse once? Or is it just a dream for the future?)

The medical grounds irrevocably certify Galloway as a raving, pathological risk who is responsible for disseminating/encouraging murder, rape and pillage.