Galloway wipes the floor with Sky News anchor

[nuckles]

http://www.infowars.org/articles/ww3...ews_anchor.htm

[Vulcan]

Loved it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Awesome

[CaptainCrunch]

Too bad Galloway is a complete tool, and idiot who departed realism a long time ago.

If you call "owned" as listening to a completely ridiculous diatribe then I figure she was owned. And the only thing she should be ashamed of is the fact that she was owned by a complete fool.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Too bad Galloway is a complete tool, and idiot who departed realism a long time ago.

If you call "owned" as listening to a completely ridiculous diatribe then I figure she was owned. And the only thing she should be ashamed of is the fact that she was owned by a complete fool.

Whether he is a complete tool and idiot or not, his brand of realism is a welcome input as opposed to the Israeli propoganda we are bombarded with. I don't buy the story that the Jews have clean hands in this war.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Too bad Galloway is a complete tool, and idiot who departed realism a long time ago.

Insults without argument to back them up rarely persuade anyone. If you really want people to see Galloway as a non-credible source then you should make an attempt to refute his claims via other sources.

As it is you've given me no reasons to disregard his analysis and view of the situation. Personally I thought he made some great points and I have been wondering over the past week myself how popular opinion and media reporting seems to absolve Israel of blame and ignores their role over the past few decades in fomenting this conflict.

[Footscray]

Too bad his views were so polarizing because it is awesome to see a news anchor get slammed on those grounds - whatever their position the way they frame their questions and state "facts" is disturbing in how it dictates the way the world is to all the sheep out there instead of encouraging them to think for themselves. So many of them claim to be neutral while promoting the agenda of the network's stakeholders.

[White Doors]

He is a complete idiot.
A terrorist group attacks a free democracy and that democracy strikes back trying to minimize civilian casualties while the terrorist group INTENDS to kill as many jews as possible. I'm glad I'll be on the correct side of history. People like this is what emboldens the fanatics to attack the west in the first place. This is not a dispute over 'land'. They simply want to kill all of the jews. All of them.

Pick your sides.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by White Doors

He is a complete idiot.
A terrorist group attacks a free democracy and that democracy strikes back trying to minimize civilian casualties while the terrorist group INTENDS to kill as many jews as possible. I'm glad I'll be on the correct side of history. People like this is what emboldens the fanatics to attack the west in the first place. This is not a dispute over 'land'. They simply want to kill all of the jews. All of them.

Pick your sides.

Spoon ---> Mouth.

[ernie]

idiot or not. Agree or disagree with his political views. The one thing that is true is that he is absolutely correct...this is a huge win for Hezbollah. They are more popular now across the all facets of the Muslim world (especially in the middle east) then they were only a few short weeks ago.

[Hakan]

Fantastic interview. It's so refreshing seeing a talking head actually saying something.

For me, Galloway really put this conflict into perspective, Israel gets basically a free hand to do whatever they please in western media.

For instance, on the news this morning, the announcer casually says that Israel's defense cabinet approved an invasion into southern Lebanon. There was no more commentary after that. Just the apparent illusion that Israel's actions are now legitimate because their own cabinet approved a hostile invasion. Great. The United States doesn't even off that easy.

[underGRADFlame]

What gets me is how, like in any conflict, both sides try and paint it as black and white, when we all know that theres just a big grey stain. Both sides are to blame, both are responsible for it escilating to the point it is now. It sickens me to to see the blame game played in the media. No one is right in this war.

[SoulOfTheFlame]

Awesome.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Insults without argument to back them up rarely persuade anyone. If you really want people to see Galloway as a non-credible source then you should make an attempt to refute his claims via other sources.

As it is you've given me no reasons to disregard his analysis and view of the situation. Personally I thought he made some great points and I have been wondering over the past week myself how popular opinion and media reporting seems to absolve Israel of blame and ignores their role over the past few decades in fomenting this conflict.

Anyone who backs up a terrorist organization is non-credible. If he was backing the Lebanese government and people I would agree he might have some justification but he would have to point the finger at both Israel and Hezbollah.

Absolutly unbeleivable how people can support Hezbollah or Galloways retoric. Some times I wonder if I am still in Canada.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Fantastic interview. It's so refreshing seeing a talking head actually saying something.

yup, I'm all for politician's call newsanchors idiot's and stupid - where's Gordon Ramsey!?

Originally Posted by Hakan

For me, Galloway really put this conflict into perspective,

Yes, HIS perspective - Israelis are aggressors and occupiers and Hezbolah is an organization of freedom fighters.

A lot of commentators are quoting the "Hezbollah is run by Iran while the US supplies Israel" line (Exept for Michael Coren in his article today).

One side sees criminals in prison while the other sees kidnapped freedom fighters. One side sees the Shebaa farms as Lebanese while the other (the UN) see it as Syrian land. One side says the occupiers are still there while the other side points to UN documents saying they retreated to the proper boarder.

Basically, Obi-Wan was right - all depends on your point of view.

Originally Posted by Hakan

Israel gets basically a free hand to do whatever they please in western media.

I guess the media really are unbias, cause all I see are the big bad Israeli solders wantonly destroying Lebanon's suburbs and killing people with diplomat after diplomat condemning them for it while Israelis spend a day at the beach or get married in a field.

The print media has comentaries that are anti-Israel on Monday and pro-Israel on Tuesday.

For instance, on the news this morning, the announcer casually says that Israel's defense cabinet approved an invasion into southern Lebanon. There was no more commentary after that. Just the apparent illusion that Israel's actions are now legitimate because their own cabinet approved a hostile invasion. Great. The United States doesn't even off that easy.

The announcer read his/her 10 second newsbite. Commentary comes later - generally in the paper or over three hours of TV on Sunday morning (CBC, CBS, CTV, NBC, FOX, CNN - take your pick)

The newsbite wasn't about legitimacy - you just accepted some illusion - it was about Israel the stakes of the war. period.

Is it a legitimate move? At this stage, it doesn't matter. If you are aruging legitimacy, them I think you need to argue about the whole operation.

(BTW - Israel held off on the escalation to give diplomats a few extra days to try to work something out.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Anyone who backs up a terrorist organization is non-credible. If he was backing the Lebanese government and people I would agree he might have some justification but he would have to point the finger at both Israel and Hezbollah.

Absolutly unbeleivable how people can support Hezbollah or Galloways retoric. Some times I wonder if I am still in Canada.

Well, That is not entirely accurate (like a number of things that Galloway claims). I got the impression that Galloway accepts hezbollah as a freedom fighter organization with legitamate government ties and belittles the desigantion "terrorist" when applied to them. Galloway is on side if you believe that hezbollah is a resistance movement set on freeing their people and their land.

An interesting point during the interview, I think, is when the anchor tried to make the hezbollah/IRA comparison and he dismissed it. I though that would be a reasonable comparison - terrorist organization (in England's view) renounces violence, but does not disarm, becomes viable and powerful (though I do not know how powerful) political party. hezbollah can't do the same? Are there still IRA fighters in English prisons?

Also, in his favour, Galloway does note the need for the Two State solution , omiting the key sticking point of the "right of return" which most leftists generally focus on.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Insults without argument to back them up rarely persuade anyone. If you really want people to see Galloway as a non-credible source then you should make an attempt to refute his claims via other sources.

As it is you've given me no reasons to disregard his analysis and view of the situation. Personally I thought he made some great points and I have been wondering over the past week myself how popular opinion and media reporting seems to absolve Israel of blame and ignores their role over the past few decades in fomenting this conflict.

I think Galloway is a credible source, knows his stuff, and has picked a side, and can work his slant to the story.

What were the great points?

That he believes that Israel's Lebanon invasion never ended? The UN called Israel's 2000 withdrawl to the recognized "Blue Line" (the international boarder) complete.

That he believes that the criminals in prison are kidnapped freedom fighters? As he said, one man's freedom fighter is another man's murderer.

That hezbollah is more popular now than ever and is winning? He's probably right.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Well, That is not entirely accurate (like a number of things that Galloway claims). I got the impression that Galloway accepts hezbollah as a freedom fighter organization with legitamate government ties and belittles the desigantion "terrorist" when applied to them. Galloway is on side if you believe that hezbollah is a resistance movement set on freeing their people and their land.

An interesting point during the interview, I think, is when the anchor tried to make the hezbollah/IRA comparison and he dismissed it. I though that would be a reasonable comparison - terrorist organization (in England's view) renounces violence, but does not disarm, becomes viable and powerful (though I do not know how powerful) political party. hezbollah can't do the same? Are there still IRA fighters in English prisons?

Also, in his favour, Galloway does note the need for the Two State solution , omiting the key sticking point of the "right of return" which most leftists generally focus on.

The thing is Israel did leave Lebanon, so there was no reason for Hezbollah to stick around and build up a massive supply of arms. They got what they wanted in 1990. But we all know that Hezbollahs main goal is to rid the world of Israel. That doesn't sound like freedom fighters to me.

[White Doors]

There is a great article in the National Post yesterday about the politics of appeasement.

There certainly is a prevailing vie of anti-semitism on the left wing of the political spectrum lately. Alot of anti-western idealists too. Alot on the left WANT the west to lose.

forgive them lord for they know not what they do.

[White Doors]

Also, I wonder if Galloway considers those arrested trying to blow up British jetliners bound for the USA 'freedom fighter's? If not, why?