George Galloway

madmax · March 24, 2009

George Galloway is well known for inciting crowds.

Galloway has come to Canada and was here as little as 2 years ago. Yes, he got people to overturn cars, set cats on fire, and eat peanut butter sandwiches on public school campuses.

Hell you can go onto his own web site and read his comments such as:

And read them in context.

Galloway doesn't need any embellishing. Taking his arguments and going over the top does only makes you look desperate. Infact, the Canadian Government looks desperate, if not stupid to the rest of the world that is paying attention to this foolishness.

Galloway is controversial, yet he is capable of making his case in public, has yet to be convicted of anything, and has been found innocent, or framed on various occasions.

The government has dropped the ball on this.

M.Dancer · March 24, 2009

what is nonsense?

GLAD YOU ASKED!!!

And yes "blacks" i.e: sub saharan africans are the closest genetically to lucy (having evolved differently).

1) No one knows what lucy's genetic markers were so your claim that sub saharan blacks are closets to lucy is nonsense.

2) Every human group has evolved differently

That blacks had to adapt to DIFFERENT conditions, different ways of adapting to their environment and that this made them DIFFERENT genetically?

Environmental Determinism lost favour in the 40s mainly because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Are you cynical enough to claim that black skin and kinky hair is a product of racism and poverty and not of millenias of adaptation to the sun?

No it is not a product of racism, it's a product of random mutations. Evolution just doesn't work that way. Otherwise we would see Southern Indians looking like south africans and Finns looking like Inuit.

lictor616 · March 24, 2009

GLAD YOU ASKED!!!
1) No one knows what lucy's genetic markers were so your claim that sub saharan blacks are closets to lucy is nonsense.

2) Every human group has evolved differently

Environmental Determinism lost favour in the 40s mainly because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

No it is not a product of racism, it's a product of random mutations. Evolution just doesn't work that way. Otherwise we would see Southern Indians looking like south africans and Finns looking like Inuit.

Well notice of course: that I was responding to a claim made by another poster (progressive conservative) to the effect that we all come from Ethiopia ... and that (he reasoned) since it was out of Ethiopia (and modern day residents of Ethiopia are blacks), the poster assured me: the only pure race is the black race... since obviously the first pre human anthropoids were blacks...

Of course you're entirely correct when you affirm that DNA is usually destroyed through fossilization. And yet here you are responding to ME as if I originated the claim. I was simply taking the poster's claim to its logical end: that of blacks being indeed closer to lucy- and different from other groups and clines for it.

And notice of course, that in prior posts I speak of an "iron law of inequality" between ALL humans... and that all groups of humans ... furthermore all individual within broadly definable groups of humans ARE also UNEQUAL.

How is environmental determinism incapable of withstanding scrutiny? A theory of evolution is nothing BUT environmental determination.

Random mutations sometimes, and evolution from different stocks of pre-human anthropoids also. But who would dream to think that having black skin (known to protect more adequately from the harmful effects of the sun) is a "random" trait picked up by sub saharan africans?

Europeans for instance are ascertained to originate from the Cro Magnon... but then again how is a theory of complete ethnic or racial or even mitochondrial equality exist?

You've yourself have suggested nothing but examples indicating INEQUALITY.

Edited March 24, 2009 by lictor616

M.Dancer · March 24, 2009

Well notice of course: that I was responding to a claim made by another poster (progressive conservative) to the effect that we all come from Ethiopia ... and that (he reasoned) since it was out of Ethiopia (and modern day residents of Ethiopia are blacks), the poster assured me: the only pure race is the black race... since obviously the first pre human anthropoids were blacks...

The out of Africa theory is accepted widely. Whether the first humans tp leave africa were black skinned is unknowable and irelevant.

Of course you're entirely correct when you affirm that DNA is usually destroyed through fossilization. And yet here you are responding to ME as if I originated the claim. I was simply taking the poster's claim to its logical end: that of blacks being indeed closer to lucy- and different from other groups and clines for it.

again, there is zero reason to believe this.

And notice of course, that in prior posts I speak of an "iron law of inequality" between ALL humans... and that all groups of humans ... furthermore all individual within broadly definable groups of humans ARE also UNEQUAL.

No idea what you are on about here.

How is environmental determinism incapable of withstanding scrutiny? A theory of evolution is nothing BUT environmental determination.

Incorrect.

Random mutations sometimes, and evolution from different stocks of pre-human anthropoids also. But who would dream to think that having black skin (known to protect more adequately from the harmful effects of the sun) is a "random" trait picked up by sub saharan africans? Europeans for instance are ascertained to originate from the Cro Magnon... but then again how is a theory of complete ethnic or racial or even mitochondrial equality exist?

I don't think you understand the mechanics of evolution. Evolution doesn't evolve traits to deal with the environment, but rather traits that randomly occur and are passed on become more common, Even more likely why africans are darker that they found dark skin more attractive than pale. Black skin in itself is a poor adaptation. Now if you want to talk about a gracile skeleton being beter adapted to the heat, you may have a point. Again, how and why the gracile trait was passed on has nmore to do with attarcting a mate than any thing else.

The idea that the hot sun is the reason iafrcan are black is ludicrous given that most of non sahara is covered with vegetation....a more likely evolutionary trait to evolve is a brain capable of inventing the hat.

Further more, cromagnon isn't really in vogue anymore as there is no difference anatomicaly. Interesting to note though the first humans in europe has skeletal features similar to their african relatives.

You've yourself have suggested nothing but examples indicating INEQUALITY.

I have no idea what you are on about.

waldo · March 24, 2009

I believe he was accused of being involved, however, I don't BELIEVE there was any truth to the accusations. I could be wrong though. I do know he stood up to his accusers in the US about it though. I suppose if he had been guilty he'd be barred from there as well.
I don't see what is so threatening about his words, My bet is that we'll end up seeing him on Canadian soil again.

EDIT: Found these on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R31WCX_YoDE and continues as parts 2, 3, 4 etc....

theatrics extraordinaire! Watching Galloway handle that swarmy Republican Senator Norm Coleman was a treat... go Franken go!

and yes - no accusations have ever been proved; rather, in regards "Oil for Food", documents intended to frame Galloway have been proven as forgeries... and Galloway was successful in a lawsuit against the Daily Telegraph newspaper Galloway wins libel case

Charlie Rose interview with Galloway (same day after his Senate testimony... about 19:30 minutes into the video)

capricorn · March 25, 2009

It is his financing of terror operations and support of terrorism not his other views that are being questioned.
It is worried he is fund raising not for benevolent charities but to raise finances to enable future terror attacks.

I have to wonder what is the source of Galloway's wealth. He surely couldn't afford his large donations in aid of Palestinians on his parliamentarian's salary. He probably earns money with speaking engagements and he may have inherited from relatives but....

He personally donated £25,000 and a fleet of vehicles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7939480.stm

In Canadian dollars that has got to be over $150,000. in personal donations. Very generous indeed. And there might be more donations that have not been reported in the media. Who knows.

I personally believe this is just a narcissist who likes drawing attention to himself.

You could be right that it's all there is to him Rue. I find there are compelling reasons on both sides as to whether Galloway should be banned. I tilt toward keeping him out. It's probably best to let the courts determine whether the government has a case based in law. Goodness knows we're all curious to know how solid are their arguments.

-----

I'll add this aspect I find interesting. Galloway was granted a Palestinian passport by Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader in Gaza and former Palestinian prime minister. In the article linked above, Galloway strikes a friendly pose with Haniyeh as he accepts the symbolic passport. Today, in an phone interview on CTV, he said:

"I have not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Hamas," Galloway told CTV's Power Play by phone from New Jersey on Tuesday. "If I had a vote in the Palestinian elections it would not go to Hamas."

Yet it is widely reported that he has made speeches praising Hamas.

I wonder how well George's seemingly contradictory statements will sit with Hamas. That's not an organization I would want to antagonize, if you know what I mean.

Galloway sounds like your everyday politician inclined to speak from both sides of his mouth. He's not bad as a cat impersonator either.

Edited March 25, 2009 by capricorn

Shakeyhands · March 25, 2009

theatrics extraordinaire! Watching Galloway handle that swarmy Republican Senator Norm Coleman was a treat... go Franken go!
and yes - no accusations have ever been proved; rather, in regards "Oil for Food", documents intended to frame Galloway have been proven as forgeries... and Galloway was successful in a lawsuit against the Daily Telegraph newspaper Galloway wins libel case

Charlie Rose interview with Galloway (same day after his Senate testimony... about 19:30 minutes into the video)

And to that end, I'd like to see where he was found guilty of anything. To me, it seems just another smear case.

Can someone please provide proof of his guilt? Yeah, he's a bit of a wanker who likes to hear himself talk, but at the end of the day... is he wrong in what he is saying?

Argus · March 25, 2009

And to that end, I'd like to see where he was found guilty of anything. To me, it seems just another smear case.
Can someone please provide proof of his guilt? Yeah, he's a bit of a wanker who likes to hear himself talk, but at the end of the day... is he wrong in what he is saying?

Very much so. As anyone with reasonable judgement could attest.

Argus · March 25, 2009

Well put Oleg.

You are the only person who would ever write the above....

madmax · March 25, 2009

Galloway sounds like your everyday politician inclined to speak from both sides of his mouth.

He is your everyday politician doing what politicians do best. And lets see, people are looking at nefarious middle eastern activities for the source of his wealth. Thats a waste of time and resources. Look at any Canadian Politician and find the source of their wealth. Look at any British Politician and find the source of their wealth.

Galloway has a big mouth. He does things he believes in, and says things he shouldn't. It doesn't surprise me he would take a palestinian passport (what is that as palestine is not a country?), and say he wouldn't vote for Hamas. That's totally believeable. He'd probably start his own party called Respect, and be assassinated by morning.

I am not afraid of Galloway coming here. He didn't get anytime on MLW during his last Canadian appearance. An over the top McCarthy style of government fearmongering is starting to take shape.

He's not bad as a cat impersonator either.

:lol:

waldo · March 25, 2009

Infact, the Canadian Government looks desperate, if not stupid to the rest of the world that is paying attention to this foolishness.
Galloway is controversial, yet he is capable of making his case in public, has yet to be convicted of anything, and has been found innocent, or framed on various occasions.

The government has dropped the ball on this.

clearly - one only needs to read some of the scathing analysis coming in from around the world - Canada is being painted quite negatively... as a denier of free-speech.

in recent days Galloway has spoken in New York and New Jersey with upcoming speaking engagements: today-March 25 - Pennsylvania; March 26- Ann Arbor, Michigan; March 27 - Detroit, Michigan; March 28 - Washington, D.C.; March 29 - Washington, D.C.; April 5 - San Jose, CA.; April 6 - San Diego, CA.; April 7 - Garden Grove, CA.

Galloway can speak across the U.S., but to Steven Harper/Jason Kenney he poses an "insurmountable risk" to Canada. Shameful.

An over the top McCarthy style of government fear mongering is starting to take shape.

... more than starting to take shape - the Harper Conservative, "McCarthy style" government fear mongering is well underway!

Shakeyhands · March 25, 2009

Very much so. As anyone with reasonable judgement could attest.

Pithy comments aside, please tell me how? Is taking the other side of an issue all that bad?

Argus · March 25, 2009

clearly - one only needs to read some of the scathing analysis coming in from around the world - Canada is being painted quite negatively... as a denier of free-speech.

Scathing analysis coming in from around the world? Do you actually believe there are that many people who even know who this cretin is, much less care that Canada doesn't want him here?

And I guarantee you that anyone concerning himself enough to be making 'scathing comments' is the kind of fruitloop that we could not possibly care about anyway.

Argus · March 25, 2009

Pithy comments aside, please tell me how? Is taking the other side of an issue all that bad?

Depends on the issue.

Oleg Bach · March 25, 2009

Galloway has a tiny head. He must be functioning full capacity just to get by. Sure is nice that he supports the poor Palistinians - and it would be better and more well rounded if he supported the Israelis and perhaps condemed the Americans for their mindless and habitual self serving facilitation of any bad behvaiour of Israel.

Oleg Bach · March 25, 2009

well its complicated the JDL is right wing, fascist, nationalistic and vigorously racist when it comes to defending the Jewish people and Israel.
but when they are disseminating propaganda for the hoi polloi (us goy serfs) then the attitude is the usual: "more diversity, more equality, no white racism and more tolerance"

and we as European Canadians get to sit while the JDL spreads its excrement on our faces...

and thank them for it...

I mildly suppose that perhaps if this bunch of extremists had embraced rather than rejected the teachings of their greatest rabboni and long lost King of Judea - the old rightful heir to the royal lands ....you know Jesus the annointed one Christ...just maybe they could get humanized and get along - but exceptance of the original form of the Christian movement would simply be bad for buisness - after all - imagine being fair and providing a fair playing field for all concerned? I guess that just would not do for the overly entitled and falsely privledged.

waldo · March 25, 2009

Scathing analysis coming in from around the world? Do you actually believe there are that many people who even know who this cretin is, much less care that Canada doesn't want him here?
And I guarantee you that anyone concerning himself enough to be making 'scathing comments' is the kind of fruitloop that we could not possibly care about anyway.

notwithstanding your guarantee - a weighty assurance (if only in your mind)... Galloway is very well known around the world.

Fortunately, the organizers of his Canadian tour are moving forward within the courts attempting to have the ban overturned... the Canadians Civil Liberties Union, the Council of Canadians, assorted trade unions, various anti-war coalitions, etc. Could you reply back to formally attach to these groups the widely recognized and revered Argus cretin & fruitloop label - thank you in advance.

Argus · March 25, 2009

notwithstanding your guarantee - a weighty assurance (if only in your mind)... Galloway is very well known around the world.
Fortunately, the organizers of his Canadian tour are moving forward within the courts attempting to have the ban overturned... the Canadians Civil Liberties Union, the Council of Canadians, assorted trade unions, various anti-war coalitions, etc. Could you reply back to formally attach to these groups the widely recognized and revered Argus cretin & fruitloop label - thank you in advance.

The usual suspects locally. I'd expect no different from them. Most of them, however, are the groups that can beexpected to turn out at any visit by an israeli to throw chairs and stones and demand the event be stopped.

My point remains, just who internationally, is upset that Galloway, a recognized cretin, isn't allowed into Canada? And why should any sane person give a damned what they think? I know he's a hero to anti-Semites everywhree, but who else would care?

Oleg Bach · March 25, 2009

The usual suspects locally. I'd expect no different from them. Most of them, however, are the groups that can beexpected to turn out at any visit by an israeli to throw chairs and stones and demand the event be stopped.
My point remains, just who internationally, is upset that Galloway, a recognized cretin, isn't allowed into Canada? And why should any sane person give a damned what they think? I know he's a hero to anti-Semites everywhree, but who else would care?

You are removing the entitlement and privledge of some Jewish extremist..who like to have authority and power over government and court. I guarentee you that the courts will block Galloway..in order to appease the Jewish lobby who have done a lot of favours for their gentile masters...unless the courts finally decide to double cross their henchmen - the same way Conrad Blacks lawyer Greenspan double crossed his client out of sheer spite and revenge.

Argus · March 25, 2009

You are removing the entitlement and privledge of some Jewish extremist..who like to have authority and power over government and court. I guarentee you that the courts will block Galloway..in order to appease the Jewish lobby who have done a lot of favours for their gentile masters...unless the courts finally decide to double cross their henchmen - the same way Conrad Blacks lawyer Greenspan double crossed his client out of sheer spite and revenge.

Nice try, Oleg, but you're no longer the craziest guy here. So you might as well give up.

lictor616 · March 25, 2009

QUOTE (lictor616 @ Mar 24 2009, 04:27 PM)

"Well notice of course: that I was responding to a claim made by another poster (progressive conservative) to the effect that we all come from Ethiopia ... and that (he reasoned) since it was out of Ethiopia (and modern day residents of Ethiopia are blacks), the poster assured me: the only pure race is the black race... since obviously the first pre human anthropoids were blacks"...

M.Dancer: "The out of Africa theory is accepted widely. Whether the first humans tp leave africa were black skinned is unknowable and irelevant."

-DO you bother reading before wasting your time replying? I repeat: I was responding to Progressive Tory who assured us that (to quote him directly):

Progressive Tory: “We all came out of Africa and us white folks are mutations. The only pure race is the Black African.”

Now please remember that I did recognize that fossilization does in fact destroy DNA and so we can’t tell for sure. But then again why are you telling ME this? Take it up with Progressive Tory- who seems to think that the closest living thing to our prehuman ancestors are blacks (which is not entirely implausible since they would have required the least amount of separate evolution- since they would have lived in similar conditions as lucy)

Of course you're entirely correct when you affirm that DNA is usually destroyed through fossilization. And yet here you are responding to ME as if I originated the claim. I was simply taking the poster's claim to its logical end: that of blacks being indeed closer to lucy- and different from other groups and clines for it.

QUOTE

And notice of course, that in prior posts I speak of an "iron law of inequality" between ALL humans... and that all groups of humans ... furthermore all individual within broadly definable groups of humans ARE also UNEQUAL.

M.Dancer:“No idea what you are on about here.”

Really you have no idea? Allow me to repeat:

“speak of an "iron law of inequality" between ALL humans... and that all groups of humans

a moment ago you were talking about “random genetic mutations” between large groups of humans – how does this not agree with my proposition that we are all uneqal through this “differentiated mutation”?

and by the way before you derail again: i urge to look at the skin cancer rates between whites and blacks... and perhaps then you could explain to me how skin was a "random" and unimportant triviality.

you can't be this cynical can you?

Oleg Bach · March 25, 2009

I dropped out of the vortex - a white haired child with green grey eyes - and none of my ancestors were apes - nor did I ever live in Africa - so how yah doin their Hannibal? Your a good writer - avoid putting yourself in a pigeon hole with the white supreme being thing...keep your superiourity to yourself if you are superiour.

Rue · March 25, 2009

Where did he say all that?

In his speeches, interviews and articles. They are public domain,

lictor616 · March 25, 2009

The out of Africa theory is accepted widely. Whether the first humans tp leave africa were black skinned is unknowable and irelevant.
I don't think you understand the mechanics of evolution. Evolution doesn't evolve traits to deal with the environment, but rather traits that randomly occur and are passed on become more common, Even more likely why africans are darker that they found dark skin more attractive than pale. Black skin in itself is a poor adaptation. Now if you want to talk about a gracile skeleton being beter adapted to the heat, you may have a point. Again, how and why the gracile trait was passed on has nmore to do with attarcting a mate than any thing else.

The idea that the hot sun is the reason iafrcan are black is ludicrous given that most of non sahara is covered with vegetation....a more likely evolutionary trait to evolve is a brain capable of inventing the hat.

ROFL.... sheer nonsense!

unfortunately fully none of the sub saharan "black" tribes in africa mastered hat weaving hence... their brain did not INVENT the hat.

"Nature has selected for people with darker skin in tropical latitudes, especially in nonforested regions, where ultraviolet radiation to hear the preceding term pronounced radiation from the sun is usually the most intense. Melanin acts as a protective biological shield against ultraviolet radiation. By doing this, it helps to prevent sunburn damage that could result in DNA changes and, subsequently, melanoma --a cancer of the skin. Melanoma is a serious threat to life. In the United States, approximately 54,000 people get this aggressive type of cancer every year and nearly 8,000 of them die from it. Those at highest risk are European Americans. They have a 10 times higher risk than African Americans." (http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4.htm)

skin tone is certainly not a RANDOM mutation, but a trait developed through rigorous natural selection to cope with specific environments.

Anyone who denies this is simply playing dunderhead.

Edited March 25, 2009 by lictor616

Oleg Bach · March 25, 2009

You don't need to "weave" a hat. A person can take a wide leaf from a palm and place it on their head - there you go - A HAT! No one will fully know where mankind originated. They will never know how long we have been here or where we truely come from --- speculation through theory and wishful scientific thinking will never discover the origin of man kind anymore that the discovery or origin of God....oooh - the nasty G word that some can not comprehend...The world is full of your type - millions of you for hundrends of years attempting to come up with the answer - and still no answer --- I'll drop by in a million years - maybe the dogs will have developed lips by then and they can tell us all. :lol: