Posts Tagged 'George Galloway'

George Galloway in fine form

No man is an Island, hence NEVER give absolute loyalty to them, unless it’s the Mehdi or Isa. Oppose them when deserve opposing and support them when the deserve supporting. So I bring you George Galloway in fine form…

 

Advertisements

George Galloway interviews Paul Stott on 9 11 conspiracy theoories

I’m pasting a home made transcript of the below interview with George Galloway and Paul Stott. Will comment on it later and boy is there a lot to say about it

Transcript:

GG: We’re going to talk to a man who I think will emerge in time as the principle debunker of the conspiracy theorists on 9-11. I had the privilege of interviewing today for my television show which goes out on Sunday night, and I immediately  thought that we should him to a wider audience and that wider audience is you. Let me say right up top that I have never argued, never, and don’t now, that there are many things about 9-11 that we do not know. And I’m certainly not saying that there are not things that raise very serious question marks. And I’m not saying, I’m definitely not saying, that George W Bush and Dick Chaney are not  capable of very nefarious deeds indeed. But I am saying and have always said, will continue to say until someone proves otherwise to me, that to allege, as many do, that this act of mass murder on 9-11 ten years ago was some kind of conspiracy by the Americans themselves, that it might not even been what we thought it was, that it might be for example that these planes were not planes or that these planes were empty, that the passengers were duped or stooges or agents or any of the other plethora of other conspiracy theories that I hear – I just don’t buy them. That doesn’t make me a part of the conspiracy – although many of you out there think I am. Most people listening will find this hard to believe, but there is a class of person on the internet that thinks I am an agent… for George W Bush. I’m not making that up. They think I’m covering for George W Bush. They think that the radicalism you hear from me most of the time, is actually a cover, that I’m a gate-keeper. So, I’ve decided to call in some expert witness and Paul Stott the editor of the 9-11 Cult-watch blog, who’s a distinguished academic, he’s my man. Paul., welcome to the show.

PS: Good evening George, you’re all-right?

GG” Yes. Give me your top 5 will you? What’s your top 5 debunking facts?

PS: Well, I think the first thing to talk about really George it’s why people get these theories and why they believe in some of these theories and I’ve spent a lot of time going to 9-11 truth meetings, speaking to truthers, arguing with them on the internet, and I think very often they have a general… there looking for certainty, there looking for explanations from a world that’s lost a lot of its certainties and they don’t really seem to believe in anything anybody tells them anymore which is probably the fault of some of the politicians you mentioned earlier and they find their answers on the internet, they find their answers on you YouTube and once they start it just becomes a viscous circle really.

GG: Well when I hear people say “I’ve been doing a bit of research”, I know that they mean they’ve been on the Internet. And this assumption that exists that if because something is written on the internet, that it’s true, astounds me.

PS: Yeah I mean there was a time George that if you wanted to understand about American Foreign Policy you would read a book by Chomsky to read a criticism of it, or you read a book by one of the neo-Cons if you were a supporter of a that foreign policy. That period seems to have long gone now. It’s all about little snippets of information, little you know it’s a a sort of three minute culture almost and we’re actually all the poorer for that.

GG: Well it’s the old adage that a little knowledge is dangerous and when people have got that little knowledge from the internet, it’s particularly dangerous

PS: Yeah

GG: Now lets deal with some of the main arguments

PS: OK

GG: The argument that in fact these towers could not have fallen down with only two large passenger plane jets flying into them, that they therefore must have been dynamited down. Answer that.

PS: OK. Well, first thing to say there’s absolutely no evidence that anything other than planes hit. So that’s one of the, you know, you get these no plane theory guys. For people to have brought the towers down with explosives – I don’t know if you’ve ever attended a demolition of an old tower block in London or Glasgow,

GG: Yes, I have yes,

PS: Or wherever, there quite lengthy periods and an enormous amount of cabling has to be laid. Nobody has been seen laying any cabling in either of the twin towers, there was no evidence of any workers going in you know laying the thousands of yards of cabling that would have been needed and to be brutally honest, if your flying two planes into the towers at great speed, why do you actually need also lay explosives?

There is actually some rather interesting research being done that makes the point that for both of the twin towers the NY authorities revoked certain building regulations when the twin towers have been built so that they could be build cheaper so I’m afraid there’s probably some evidence that thy were Jerry build and weren’t as sturdy as they should have been. But we’ve all seen the planes hit. We haven’t’ seen anything of explosives in there.

GG: Now, seems to me that the official versions weakest point is building 7.

PS: Yes…. I think with building 7 the line you always get from thruthers is the focus on this line of ‘Lets pull it”, that one of the owner of WTC7, is alleged to have made. In a way exactly the same arguments apply to World Trade Centre 7 as to 1 and 2. Nobody has been seen placing any explosives in there. A considerable conspiracy of an extremely large number of people would have been needed. No whistle-blowers have come forward, Nobody has been cited up to anything they shouldn’t have been. So, there’s just no evidence as week as strong or as strong as the official story may be. That’s the best story we have until somebody comes up with something else. The line “Let’s pull it” – that’s pretty vague. It could mean let’s putt it down in the future.

GG:  Yeah that’s not the main argument about building 7 though. The main argument is “How could it have fallen down?”

PS: Well you’ve just had two planes fly into tow neighboring buildings and those two building come down. You also have uncontrolled fires in that building. You’ve had the Jerry built nature arguably of some of the developments in the world trade centre complex. I think also there’s a background difficulty here George that what you get with 9-11 truthers is they set for everybody else the burdon of proof the prosecution., you know you’re expected to prove every single aspect of the story beyond all reasonable doubt whilst all they require themselves to do is to really play the role of a rather haphazard defence barrister, raising the odd doubt here and there and there’s enough. The world isn’t like that in practice.

GG: What about the Pentagon. They say that there’s no footage ever been released of an aeroplane striking the Pentagon. That the space that was destroyed in the façade of the building was not wide enough for it to have been the size of jet airliner it’s supposed to have been.

PS: Well the, first of all the Pentagon is a military building. By in large you don’t get a lot of footage being released of what’s going on inside all that military buildings. So I’m not hugely surprised we’ve not have every single camera shot of every single angle. The footage you had of the plane going in – you may have seen some news footage of it – the most likely explanation which you see a little bit of I think in the footage, the plane goes through and the wings have followed through, the debris of the wings has gone through behind the planes. It’s also worth noting that with the Pentagon that with the sort the truthers big theory on that emerges from a French guy, Theirry Maison. who wrote the book ‘The big lie’. Not unusually in 9-11 circles, that was actually a work of fiction that eventually got turned into a work of fact. Its’ the same with the film Loose Change. There’s a strong correlation in a way, a strong over-cross between fact and fiction in these circles.

GG: And lastly flight 93. What happened to it? Was it shot down or brought down but the passengers trying to lead a revolt?

PS: I think that’s a harder one. I think at the time of 9-11, America was battered, was humilated and was humbled.

GG: Needed some heroes.

PS: And so I thing that’s the only part of the sort of questions you’ve asked, I can see a little bit on both sides, George. I think we certainly know Bush had given instructions that any additional planes were to be shot down. You’ve got the whole sort of mythology of “Let’s Roll” and what have you. We’ll see on that, really. I’m open perhaps on discussion on that than anything else personally.

GG: Now, how do people follow your Cult Watch blog. What’s the website.

PS: Well, it’s my name, Paul Stott dot typepad dot com and then slash 9-11 Cultwatch or you can just Google my name, go onto the 9-11 Cultwatch blog. The reason really we talk about is from arguing and debating with some truth activists here in London. And you know the use of these terms ‘gatekeeper’, I mean I’m an academic Gatekeeper keeper,  Chomsky’s a left gatekeeper, You’re no doubt a media gatekeeper now. And I’m afraid it’s was rather reminiscent from talking to people from Cults, there’s very little, very little you can do to get through to people.

GG: Yeah, there are serious people with serious questions but there’s undoubtedly also a cult around this developed. Undoubtedly.

PS: Yes, yes, and I’m afraid I don’t really see that changing in the short term because obviously the more serious analysts, if you like, or those who’ve perhaps got more interesting arguments to say, there eventually gonna tire of the more you know wacko elements I’m afraid.

GG: That’s Paul Stott, S-T-O-T-T. Paul Stott if you Google him, you’ll end up on the cult watch blog. And it’s worth doing I can tell ya.

Transcript Ends…

—————————————

Tinpot tyrant ain’t seen nothing yet

Tinpot tyrant ain’t seen nothing yet

By George Galloway on Jan 11, 10 07:01 AM in

I have been in a few dangerous places in my life. In the mid 80s along with an ITN news crew I was bombed by the Ethiopian air force.

My face pressing into the dirt, with no cover around, I saw the shrapnel tear and kill small children and watched others die on a wooden table in a grass hut after they bombers had gone.

I have been bombed by Israel in Beirut and held with an Israeli machine gun at my chest in Nablus during the first Iraq war.

Involuntarily, I put my hands up and the blue-eyed blonde “Israeli” said that if I didn’t put my hands down he would kill me.

I’ve never, however, been in a more dangerous situation than last week in the tiny Sinai port of Al Arish to which the Egyptian dictatorship had insisted we bring our convoy.

Five hundred foreigners from 17 different nationalities with 200 vehicles were crammed into a compound without water, food or toilet facilities. They included 10 Turkish MPs one of whom was the chairman of Turkey’s foreign relations committee.

We captured on film from a third floor office the thugs of the Mukhabarat (Intelligence) piling stones and sharpening their sticks behind the backs of several ranks of riot police with helmets, batons and shields. Then mayhem.

We may have complaints about our police, but I tell you, when you see policemen hurling half-bricks into a crowd of women and men who’d come to deliver medicine to desperate people under siege, you thank your lucky stars we don’t live in such a state. Fifty five of our 500 were wounded and, but for the shocking effect on Arab public opinion (our own media didn’t give a damn) of the live footage (all on Youtube now), we might still be there yet.

Next day, the dictatorship wanted us on our way. We refused to leave without our wounded comrades and the seven of our number who had been taken prisoner. After another stand-off our demands were met and we proceeded to a tumultuous welcome in Gaza our numbers complete. Word came to me from inside the Egyptian tyranny that I was to be arrested when we came out. Had that happened while I was surrounded by 500 pumped up convoy members there would have been serious trouble.

So I sent them the message that I would come out in the dead of the night before and face the music alone but for my old friend Scots journalist Ron McKay.

McKay is a thriller writer these days but what happened next would have taxed even his imagination.

We emerged into the hands of a grim phalanx of mainly plain clothed secret policemen, none of whom could speak English. They tried to keep our passports but we refused to budge without them – even though there was menace in the air, or perhaps because of it.

They bundled us into an unmarked van which they refused to let us climb out of, at one stage man-handling us.

An Egyptian gumshoe journalist from the Daily News tried to interview us but he was battered away.

We were driven off at speed. I knew we were not going to be killed as we were able to make the necessary calls – well at least the call to the Press Association which makes all the difference in these situations.

We made the formal call to the British Foreign Office but it wasn’t worth the money. During the five-hour journey to Cairo the British diplomats did nothing but tell us to co-operate.

That co-operation was difficult as the police could speak no English and were saying nothing.

Word came from London that Nile News, a mouthpiece of the dictatorship, were reporting in the morning the seven convoy prisoners we had released at al Arish were to be re-arrested on emerging from Gaza.

Thus the bloodbath we sought to avoid now looked inevitable. We demanded to return to the Gaza-Egypt border but were refused. At Cairo airport we refused to enter the terminal and tried to hail a taxi to take us back.

Security forces goons pushed us physically into the airport building and gave close quarter attention to both of us, even in the toilet. They followed us everywhere and when McKay took a picture there was nearly a serious incident. They ushered us up to the entrance of the BA plane and the first English speaker of the night stepped forward to declare me persona non grata in Egypt.

I made my own declaration to him which was that he and his fellow torturers would one day face the wrath of the Egyptian people, who had queued up at the airport in full view of the goons, to shake hands with us. Later, his department stated I had been banned from Egypt because I was “a trouble-maker”. Mr Tinpot tyrant 99.99 of the vote Mubarak, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Source:http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2010/01/tinpot-tyrant-aint-seen-nothin.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyRecord%2FGeorgeGalloway+%28The+Daily+Record+-+George+Galloway%29

Bachman Turner Overdrive – You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJmBPCYt5LY

What’s up George?

Updated Sun 26th Apr 09 – but not all errors repaired yet.

 

Georgie boy. I’ve been watching you. What went through your mind when you pledged allegiance to the queen?

 

What went through your mind when you cashed in my £100 donation, when you sued the Telegraph about your alleged Iraqi oil allocations? Nothing went through your mind obviously when you didn’t return the cash in spite of the promise you gave before hand that all contributors would be refunded via the settlement.

 

And Georgie boy, why do you support what is rather stupidly called ‘Gay rights‘ yet you claim to be a believer in God? And you very rarely talk about gay issues in public. Lucky Peter Tatchell is there to beguile the masses that you are anti-gay. Good for recruiting Muslims. On the gay issue, do you hastily shut your Bible or Qur’an when that issue comes up?  You know better than God is it? Is your finger reflexing onto a wished for red censorship button yet?

 

How come the Israeli’s let you into Gaza? Unreserved praise to you however for the aid you helped get into Gaza under the Viva Palestina campaign. You’ve got great prositivisms but your negatives need to be addressed too!

 

This video below brought back some previous thoughts of GG.

 

 

 

 

 The Dossier also links to a clip where Georgie supposedly poo-poos 9-11 scepticism (but the dossiers link is dead)

 

———————————-

 

 

This from GG’s talksport radio show… I wrote the bulk of it 16 months ago.

 

GG and Abdul 28-12-07 talksport  117m:57s

GG: Here’s Abdul in Greenford. Go on Abdul

 

A: Good evening George.

 

GG: Good evening to you sir

 

A: Yeah, em, I’d to disagree with your assertion that BB would have been the best thing for the Pakistani nation.

 

GG: Go on

 

A:

for the simple reason it would have meant almost definitely the death sentence for numerous thousands of Pakistanis along the border which was alluded to in Waziristan in the north western frontier area, and the Beluchi area, in Peshawar and numerous other areas of Pakistan. And if I could just go onto explain my reasons for that George:

 

GG: Yep.

 

A: Yeah. Ever since Sept 11th happened and eh, the infamous threat that was given to General Musharraf that the Americans would bomb Pakistan back into the stonae age

 

GG: Yep.

 

A: They were given Carte blance to do what ever they wanted in Pakistan in respect of Al-Qaeda or Taliban or however you want to describe them

 

GG: Hummm

 

A: And uuuh, General Musharaf gave them that permission. They’ve been bombing, they’ve been crossing the border, they’ve killed thousands of thousands upon thousands of civilians. You don’t ever see it on the papers here, but through our own networks in the mosques in numerous places, you will see the collections taking place and you will see the photographs of numerous of Pakistani’s being killed. A lot of your listeners don’t seem to know that there is already western intervention in Pakistan. It’s been going on for many years.

 

GG: Yeah, I’ve been pointing it out.. I’ve been pointing it out

 

[119:21]

A:

 

They’ve been firing artillery, they’ve been using deplete uranium, been using white phosphorous which burns people, burns villages alive. The poorest people in Pakistan which, I don’t want to criticise too much Beneie Bhutto, she’s already passed on and she will be judged as we will all be judged, but anyone who saw the American TV networks in the last few months of this year, will not have been surprised to see BB on every channel; Fox TV, C-SPAN, CNN where she was electioneering and lobbying, telling the American administration and congressmen that Musharraf wasn’t doing enough, even though he was killing thousands of his own people and his own soldiers, she was on there saying “I will do much more”, “I will fight them more”, “I will do this, I will do that”. She was gonna put a sign, target sign, on half the Pakistani population.

 

GG: Why was she so popular then eauuuh Abdul?

 

{What a stupid question. How is that question relevant? That if she was popular, then that negates the fact she was baying for even more blood letting and a closening of ties with the Americans. She advocated major leage for herself and relegation of Musharraf – into jus the little league of people killers?

And what of her supporters? Look at Turkey, look that millions of people who love the the Young Turks who massacred the Armenians, or how popular the Christian Jewish Zionists are in the States (40m members!), What of the sizeable Cuban exiles in the States who have bought into US political thinking and hate Castro, or the very significant anti-Chavez elite and middle to upper middle classes in Venezuela. How does their popularism whitewash their crimes and crimes-to-be.}

 

 

 

Abdul: Oh well you say she was popular.

 

GG: Well 2 million turned out in Karachi for her arrival.

 

{Pakistan has a population of well over 100million. What then of 2m supporters? Who counted them? 2m people marched in Feb 2003 against the Iraq war from a country of 60m – a far higher proportion than those coming to see BB return to Pakistan. You chat the inferences!

 

And this 2m Pakistani’s who went to see her. How many of them were the more affluent classes, akin to toffs as GG says, toffs which he said he doesn’t like. Are those 2m Pakistani’s just western wannabe’s? Given BB pan-Pakistanism.?}

 

 

Abdul: If she was that popular, why did the Americans circumvent the law of Pakistan and getting the charges of corruption dropped? Why wasn’t it tested in court? You don’t agree with them.

 

{I am guessing here, but Abdul may be implying that if BB was so popular, it was a reflection on the integrity of her leadership and that of her party, meaning the corruption charges would therefore have been fake and that they would not have been proved true. To a degree, I agree with Abdul. GG said to another caller that BB was so rich she had not need to try and cream off even more money (from a wheat contract he mentioned, – a single occurrence, and with obvious intentions to encourage disdain for the corruption charges) but GG gave a bit of a dodge when the issue of BB’s husband’s corruption charges was mentioned. And using GG’s logic the banksters and toffs he says he doesn’t like being already rich don’t cream off anything. GG isn’t playing devils advocate, he’s letting his friendship with BB cloud his vision. GG’s human.

I can well believe the charges were trumped up. Pakistan suffers from the interference of political meddling in the judiciary.}

 

GG: That would have nothing to do with popularity. What I am asking you is: If America is so unpopular in Pakistan and I agree with you that it is, and if BB was a slave of the Americans, why did so many people support her? Either the Americans are popular or Beezie was not a slave of the Americans.

 

Abdul: Yeah, you’re presuming that she won that election.

 

{Again a good point by Abdul which I took to mean, that we was SO popular that she would have won the elections and that her support wasn’t already fully represented in the 2 million out on the streets of Karachi. I remember when Killer Musharaf took over. While I can remember only speaking to one of my friends about it at the time, and his views may I conceded be way off, but he said that although people were nervous about the new unknown element that had imposed itself in Pakistani life in Pakistan (i.e. Musharraf and a new military state), people were fed up of the country, corruption was fife, he and other Pakistani friends mentioned the 10% problem. Corruption went on and each (or most) people in the economic chain used corrupt practices but simply took a 10% cut of each corrupted path along the way}. The same one guy then said Musharraf may improve the situation and so Musharraf was supported in some kind of apprehensive way} So BB’s rule, although short, wasn’t perhaps seen by many people as good, and therefore her support could have been significantly less than what GG is debating. BUT, Moosey became so bad that it can’t be ignored that her popularity could have spiralled picking up those disappointed with Musharaaf.}

 

GG: No no no I’m not. I’m talking about the millions that turned out on her arrival, just a few weeks ago. You must have seen it as I did?

 

121:04

Abdul: Uh, what’s that George?

 

GG: You must have seen it, as I did, the millions who turned out to welcome her.

 

Abdul: that was not an election George

{Abdul is good!}. That was a turn out to meet her. {Very good!}

 

GG: WEll, I mean, if she was an American poodle or stooge or agent or worse as your implying, why did so many people turn out to welcome her?

 

Abdul: I wouldn’t have voted for her.

{Hummm. perhaps not that good – here anyway. Abdul’s vote going elsewhere doesn’t answer the question of the two million(?) that turned out to greet her. Lets forget that people may have just gone there to witness a historical event.

 

GG: Well, she never did get a chance did she, because somebody killer her. Now I don’t know who killed her, I do know that the regeime of Musharraf has to take responsibility for the conditions, aaah, which were created for her, err, killing her, but there is a difference, there might be a difference Abdul, I’m gonna have to press you on this: there might be a difference between us, I don’t support Osama bin Laden do you?

 

{ WHAT???? This is a real let down by George. A rather wild non-sequitor, GG is fishing around to some way to try and discredit Abdul. And besides, it is utter speculation that bin Laden is responsible for this. I’m sure Abdul would have been willing to engage in hypothetical’s in a more progressive manner rather than just have a very big loaded question come his way. A hypothetical which could also have included possibilities that the US did it to keep the devil they know in power in Pakistan – or one that was more plyable, or perhaps even Musharraf did it, or one could ask members of her own family? But no. these hypothetical’s won’t allow GG to try and corner his opponent who is doing very well to show that GG’s strength of support for BB is actually badly placed. Very naughty George. Very naughty indeed!}

 

[121:47]

 

Abdul: That’s, that’s, thats’ absolutely ridiculous. and preposterous of you to say such a thing.

{Well said mate! Have you noticed something? GG’s skilfully turned the tables from focus on BB and onto you. Not once but twice. The first time was quite mild – on the popularity issue, but this one is to be honest a MASSIVE lunge for the jugular. GG has no reason to try and do this to you at all, other than to defend his belief in BB – a belief that actually would have been seen yet more innocent people being blown to smithereens – which I’m sure turns GG’s stomach when the USUKZ do it. Abdul. You have put your case very well and GG has still said nothing critical of BB’s flirtation with the US and the broader Coalition of the Killing. GG has lost the argument.

 

Now I like GG because I give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s genuine, and that he says exactly what he believes, even if sometimes he may entertain the odd contradiction, such as strong professed generally Christian religious beliefs but then he supports homosexual relationships. GG also said he dislikes what he calls ‘toffs’ – Isn’t BB a Pakistani toff? But even though I like him, I refuse to shut my eyes to any flaws he has. Here he deserves to be criticised (as he did about his caution when hearing the words Zionist and Conspiracy – which he disappointingly transposed to Jewish and Conspiracy). “No man is an Island” What GG said during his radio shows over the Christmas period and that pretty much spot on. Failure to point out the flaws of those we like is in itself a negativism – look at the way Muslims in Arab countries very much undeservedly elevate their leaders to. Many of which are puppets of the US (which is controlled by the Zionist movement)

 

GG: WEll I’m asking you.

{George is pursuing the unwarranted attempt at discreditation}

 

Abdul: I support justice in the world.

 

GG: Me too, me too. Now, I don’t believe that Osama bin Laden and his supporters have brought anything of good to Pakistan, in fact I think the West putting them there in the first place, was the beginning of the doom of Pakistan,

 

Abdul: …killed every day by the Americans. she was gonna allow…

{It seems like the beginning of Abduls comment is clipped as GG hadn’t slid the ‘open mic’ control up quick enough.}

 

GG: {closes off Abdul’s mic again} Abdul, calm down. Do you agree with me that in fact it was the West’s putting of the likes of bin laden into Pakistan and Afghanistan in the first place that was the beginning of the doom of Pakistan.

 

Abdul: The point is George, she was being shoe-horned into the premiership {lovely uncommon phrase there, and he’s right}

 

GG: Why don’t you answer that point Abdul, it’s making me suspicious as to why you won’t answer it.

 

{Gerogy boy, Abdul has obviously seen to some degree that you are setting a trap and looking to harvest your attack. Whereas before he was only shoved into a corner, You are now trying to crush him into it.

 

With your use of “suspicious” the public now will adopt your challenge and also expect an answer. Failure to do so will in effect, doom Abdul and bring Abduls argument into disrepute – wrongly so it must be said, but that is what the vast majority of listeners would do).

 

But by answering the question to allay those fears he is also doomed! You see, I suspect GG has sussed Abdul is the a bona fide Muslim and he knows the Abduls honest answer cannot be “No”, because despite the fact that 9-11 methodology and other attacks that killed innocent people were utterly sinful, which bin Laden may OR MAY NOT have done [actually it doesn’t matter whether bin Laden did it or not because the PUBLIC PERCEPTION has already adopted the stance that HE IS involved and GG knows there ain’t gonna be any debate on Osama’s involvement or lack of it in a conspiracy type debate – certainly on this phone call anyway] a Muslim cannot honestly say he does not support the publically perceived (public is important here) philosophy of Osama bin Laden; the fact is this philosophy is essentially Islamic! Do remember please to distinguish between the Islamic principles of that philosophy and any utterly wrong methodology. Hand on heart, all Muslims worthy of the name do actually agree with say, liberation of the Holy lands (Palestine and the Hejaz), the restoration of the Caliphate, the cleansing of Muslim lands from its terrible leaders and anti-God like practices of usury and of course, the removal of oppression for people everywhere etc. If a Muslim were to deny support for that, he is either ignorant of Islam (sadly a bit common these days) or he has thrown a dagger into the core of Islam as well as into his own heart.

 

 

Now of course, if he does somehow give any kind answer which appears to be a leaning towards bin Laden then most obviously GG will again be able to discredit Abdul by falsely brandishing Abdul as a supporter of bin Laden, Al Queda and of being a supporter of terrorism, whilst we can bet Abdul wouldn’t have time to refute those accusations and stop GG from massively inflating a misperception into serious aforementioned allegations.

 

 

GG continued:  Do you agree with me, that bin Laden and his ilk have brought nothing but disaster to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan? And that being against them is not some kind of crime. I myself am agains them. Are you against them?

 

{the diversion from Abduls point – spun into BB would have been the best thing for the Pakistani nation, is almost complete.}

 

Abdul: Against who George?

 

GG: Against the bin Ladenites who have brought disaster.

 

Abdul: What does bin Laden have to do with this? Were talking about Benazir Bhutto and…

 

GG: Well, no. I’m I’m I’m noting that you don’t want to answer that and praying in aid in you ‘charge sheet’ against her that she was determined to crush the bin Ladenites along the border.

 

{Note: Abdul spoke of these people as civilians. QUOTE: “they’ve [the Americans] killed thousands of thousands upon thousands of civilians.” He most definitely did NOT describe them as bin Ladenites. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON AT ALL! It was GG who imposed this intended slur to the people on the border, and red herring towards Abdul}

 

GG continues: I’m saying to you that’s not necessarily a bad thing, after all, the bin Ladinites and the Islamist fundamentalists have brought disaster to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Do you agree with me.

 

{WOAH! I really reject that interpretation! The imposition of a secular, fiat currency based model was earmarked for Pakistan, while having the razor thin veneer of and Islamic state (c.f. Turkey) Muslims or “Islamists” as GG calls them in this case, (Islamists in this modern age, has been made to be a dirty word by which to defame with which to defame) have in various forms resisted this Godless model. It’s been a disaster from that point of successfully imposing that system George.

 

Now this is the problem, or rather the ‘failing’ with ALL non-Muslims. They cannot escape from secular thinking. They cannot comprehend the implications of what it means to be a Muslim, the submission and the opening of the mind to Gods supremacy in regards to EVERYTHING. Unless they take that plunge and they/one personally intellectually explores the consequences of that belief, they cannot fully understand Islam. The non-Muslims can have a good knowledge of Islam and it’s practices, they may well have Muslim friends, they even may ‘like’ Islam to varying degrees* and tolerate Islam, but they IMO, they simply cannot understand the nature of a Muslims relationship with God. They will end up falsely believing they understand Muslims and Islam. It’s like trying to comprehend the qualities of an orange having only ever experienced banana’s

 

Some Muslims too fall into this, because they don’t contemplate and intellectually probe their professed belief in the All Mighty. It is this reason why people of deep religious knowledge, especially the monotheistic religions are closer to Muslims than any other people, even closer I’d say than those Muslims who haven’t undergone the mental exercising of their faith, however, in cases where say, Christian of Jewish believers take on the innovations of man into their religion, then those chinks in their armour result in the secularization of their thinking and hence differences of opinion with Muslims.

 

 

Secularists also cannot understand the necessity of Muslims to reject secularism and it is FUNDAMENTALLY anti-Islamic. The secularist will eventually, in his thinking, even if conscious of his secularism, will eventually have his secular subconscious lead to a point of derision with non-secularists, Muslims in this case. The disagreement will likely be irreconcilable (as no doubt would be demonstrable) but doesn’t necessarily have to lead anything too serious. This is also interesting because it suggests that Muslims conscious, by way of his slavery to God can actually program his subconscious. Anyway, I digress.

 

 

GG has just displayed the secularists comprehension. Here, it’s false and wrong. His implication is that in the absence of “Islamists” Pakistan would better. As he hasn’t properly defined “Islamists” he’s skating on virtual ice.

 

 

[123:17]

The West have brought disaster. there the ones… {mic muted??}

 

GG: They are – that’s exactly my point. If you’ll listen to me and keep calm {quiet?}, it was the West that brought bin Laden and the fundamentalist virus into Pakistan.

{Fundamentalist, George means to say is terrorist because a fundamentalist Muslim should be the goal of every Muslim. Someone with complete and utter submission and whose whole life is played out in praise of his Creator. Fundamentalist – one who cannot be bought off by the trappings of this world, has also been made to be a dirty word} and into Afghanistan. Do you agree?

 

Abdul: All the laws…

 

GG: do you agree with that..

 

Abdul: were cancelled(?) by the Americans

 

GG: do you agree with that point Abdul?

 

Abdul: She should have been in a court. {mic goes to silence}

 

GG: Abdul! It’s beginning to be really suspicious why you won’t answer that simple point. It was the West that brought the virus of fundamentalism into Pakistan, and it’s been a disaster for everybody. Do you agree with me.

{Now it’s “really” suspicious, GG employs his standard cannon fire, which again GG knows either answer will help him ‘defeat’ Abdul (in the publics eyes anyway) Because once again, Abdul knows what a real fundamentalist and an Islamist is i.e. both totally devoting their lives to what they believe is Islam. (and yes, I know the problem there!)

 

Abdul: No. There is resistance. {GG cuts his mic}

 

GG: Abdul, I think we’ve marked you card my dear.

 

– end –

 

There you go. GG has totally put Abdul in the narrow set of logical/argumentative pathways of GG’s creation. Pathways which GG knows exactly where they lead to.

 

Once Abduls said the word “resistance”, GG immediately shot down the path of his logic to dump the caller unceremoniously into the silence from whence he came, away from any eager ears that may have been listening. You see, GG is taking the single word ‘resistance’, and immediately cutting off any possible forthcoming contextualisation of that word by Abdul, to mean that Osama bin Laden, and Al Queda are this resistance. Resistance is legitimate you see – GG knows that, but when he casts it to out to lie with what the public consider terrorists then GG is able to make Abdul look as though he’s supporting terrorism.

 

GG that was a dreadful display. Abdul completely blew away your support of BB and did well to resist the majority of what you spoke which involved traps. You didn’t discuss a single aspect of what Abdul originally wanted to discuss.

 

Abdul. congratulations. You are one of the rare people to come out trumps in an argument under the {mic on/off} dominating control of GG. In the process GG show himself and a very ingratiating light.

 

GG, you mentioned marking peoples cards. from this performance I mark your card as supporting the deaths of civilians as was Abduls point, the deaths of civilians that would have been killed if BB won the election, when fighting what you call Islamists and fundamentalists (likely to just a bunch of believers in Islam and very likely NOT terrorists – certainly those thousands liquidated at the border) AND the poorest people of Pakistan. That is the consequence of your pro-Bhuttoism, even if you would consciously reject such a thing.

 

I hope if GG ever reads this, he learns from this and takes steps to re-examine his opinion on this matter.

 

————————

 

 

 

 

* One man, a earlier caller who was a non-Muslim on the 25th Dec show I think, gave me a huge lump in my throat when he said he tuned into Muslim radio stations and listened to Arabic (I think and presume he meant Qur’an recitals) and he espoused its virtues of listening to saying it was beautiful and calming. I can’t describe easily why that made me so emoitional. But it is beautiful.

 

 

 

 

P.S. GG. You shouted at a caller on the “non-separate issue” that the people were starving because 60% of Pakistanis budget went to Pakistan Armed forces. Tell me George, what budget allocation did your friend Benazir Bhutto allocate to the Pakistan defence forces. Also if you will, please tell me how Bhuttos stopped Pakistans nuclear defence program in her two stints as PM which lasted approximately four years.?

 

 

The same caller also pointed out an error you made earlier when you said it was the army received 60% of Pakistan’s budget, but you completely ignored it. In fact you then went on to restate your error asking the caller not understand the words you were saying when you said “so Pakistan’s defence is a different thing from Pakistan’s army is it?” Yes George. It is different. The British defence budget is not the same as the British army’s budget. from Pakistan’s Army” You gave no acknowledgement that you were wrong. This caller also legitimately asked you “who told you that” in relation to your claim that the army were behind both the depositions of Benezir Bhutto. And then you divert his question and accuse him of trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.

 

And yet you immediately go on to issued a self proclamation that you were an “I’m an expert on Pakistan and I have been for almost 30 years” and yet you later ridiculed a elderly caller, a Pakistani too boot, who made a simple mistake regarding two similarly sounding names: Benezir’s husband, Zardari with former President of Pakistan, Largari

 

The pro-Musharaf caller who you engaged in a tussle with, over the 60% army/defence budget also said ___ Bhutto the father of Benezir Bhutto wo said we will eat grass but we will develpp nuclear weapons.”

So not only Benny did her part in starving the Pakistani people but her father also took it upon himself to determine that people should starve so that his vision and his riches (the question of which you also dodged) should prevail.

 

You also contradicted yourself over the your statements of exile. You earlier said “she was exiled” but later it became “she went into exile” Her exile was of her own volition. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it George. Being an expert of almost 30 years standing and you say that?  So is it the case that in fact, she wasn’t told to get out of the country And actually, I recall demands and deadlines being made for her return so that she could face those corruption charges, and I’m pretty sure those demands came under Musharrafs dictatorship a number of years ago.

 

Later you said she went into exile because of the trumped up charges against her. And What of the presidents role? Did he just stand back and let the army file these charges???

 

You also said it was because of the “trumpeted up political charges” but is corruption not a financial charges? And that it was Nawaz Sharif who admitted that the charges HE brought against her were trumped up. But you said earlier that the army exiled her.

 

And noted is your complete disregard to the caller that questioned Benny giving her life for Globalization.

 

George George, George my love, Benny’s spell upon you has made you terribly blind my old son.

 

 

——————

 

Update April 2009. What do you say about all the drone attacks Georgie boy? That’s bin Ladens fault too isn’t it.

I’m watchin ya George and you persistent defending of Zionism when you wrongly call it Judaism and therefore identifying Zionism is a racist acusation. How can a man who proclaims to know so much about Palestine make such a fundamentl error.

 

P.S. I still want that money back please!

 

 

 

 

 

Sheridan & Galloway ask PM to Drop Bank Charges

Thanks to another great news hub, spiderednews, http://www.spiderednews.com/ I got to know about the above request by Messers Sheridan & Galloway.

Tommy Sheridan said:

Gordon Brown has the shares, and therefore the clout, to demand an end to this practice in HBOS, RBS and Northern Rock”source

While GG said:

“The government is pouring hundreds of billions of pounds into the banks, at the very least we, the public, must have a say in how these part-public-owned banks operate.”

Dear Tommy and George.

BrNWO isn’t going to use his share power for reasons of virtue. That suggestion is laughable. Buying shares iin banks as a way to stop the stock market from sliding was always a deeple sspect solution. That the government somehow ‘forgot’ that it could use that stakeholding to force banks to ease up on their vacuum sucking of money from the poor, is extremely unlikely.

———————————–

Update (29th Oct 08): Michael Hudson says the US government buy-out, involves no right to control bank policy. If this is the same for the UK banks I’m not sure but as it’s AGAINST the public interest, it probably would be the case. Hudson writes in Counterpunch 21st October 2008, (reprinted at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21066.htm):

Paulson depicted the government’s purchase of special non-voting stock as a European-style nationalization. But government’s appointed public representatives to the boards of European banks being bailed out. This has not happened in America. Bank lobbyists are reported to have approached Treasury to express their worry that their shareholdings might be diluted. But the Treasury-Democratic Party plan invests $250 billion in government credit in non-voting shares. If a recipient of this credit goes broke, the government is left the end of the line behind other creditors. Its “shares” are not real loans, but “preferred stock.” As  Paulson explained on Monday: “Government owning a stake in any private U.S. company is objectionable to most Americans – me included.” So the government’s shares are not even real stock, but a special “non-voting” issue. The public stock investment will not even have voting power! So the government gets the worst of both worlds: Its “preferred stock” issue lacks the voting power that common stock has, while also lacking the standing for repayment in case of bankruptcy that bondholders enjoy. Instead of leading to more public oversight and regulation, the crisis thus has the opposite effect here: a capitulation to Wall Street, along lines that pave the ground for a much deeper debt crisis to come as the banks “earn their way out of debt” at the expense of the rest of the economy, which is receiving no debt relief!

End of update.

———————————–

Brown, and the NWO puppet who follows him, is going to use share power to:

1) Force ID upon us – biometric ID and
2) foist e-money upon is.

I really look forward to be proved wrong, as I cannot think of no other practical steps which pose as serious a threat for the killing what little freedom we have left.

Words constantly get added to the OED. Perhaps anonymity will be the first to be removed?

V. Taboo


Lets hand grenade some livestock for a laugh.

People like George Galloway infuriate me with his TOTAL support & total absence of criticism of the occidental troops destroying Iraq and its people to this very day, as if they are powerless angels in BuSh’s, Howard’s, Rudd’s, Aznar’s, BLiar’s and Brown’s chains.

Why is he such a coward to denounce them as war criminals?

They are war criminals.

 It has long been determined that ‘following orders’ is no exemption against comitting war crimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq5_vG3cYGM

 

What is Working Class? A comment on George Galloway’s 8-Mar-08 radio broadcast.

 

I’ve never called George Galloways talksport program, nor can I say I want to.

I’d be one of those callers who says “I agree with 95% of what you say” but after listening to his show quite regularly now for about 6 months, I know what would happen if I was to try and have a worthy serious discussion on an issue relating to that remaining 5%…

I’d make a point or ask a question to which George, talking for far longer than I, would state his well aired view, perhaps never allowing me back in again only to move onto the next caller. I’d be left frustrated that once again, an issue on which he and his caller took opposite opinions on, never really got a decent discussion or that he listened enough to listen to my point of view and perhaps be persuaded by it. Either that or he’d end his initial reply by asking me a rather narrow ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet’ type question, allowing me back in only to have him then turn down my call and then moving on. If you listen to his show, I’m sure you will know what I mean. OK, the idiot drunk, Zionist apologist or the racist turd that calls in rightfully bears the brunt of that method of dispatch, but sometimes I feel too often he terminates a discussion antagonistic to his own opinion far too early.

It’s not that I don’t like GG. I do! Like I said, I think we probably see eye-to-eye on about 95% of cases. His sense of justice is top notch, as is his ability to see through anti-Palestinian propaganda. Plus he’s probably one of the most truthful politicians. What’s more, I’ve sent two lots of subs to Respect (before it’s hijacking by the Socialist Workers Party became public), and I’ve also contributed almost a weeks wages to his legal team in taking the then Conrad Black owned ‘Telegraph’, to court, when it used fake documents to accuse him of being involved with Iraqi oil for favours. I was also utterly glued to my computer monitor when he was in Washington Senate, giving two smoking barrels to neocon Norm Coleman. I would be willing to support him again if need be. So My liking for GG and my past support for him is clear. 

But no man is an Island, as my regular readers will of course know (who yes, will hopefully also think similarly of me, as it should be right?)

 And so the issue of class came up on the 8th March show. I was a bit annoyed at the way he dealt with it and in fact he contradicted himself on at least one occasion.

As far as I know, there isn’t a definitive statement as to what working class is – where it begins and where it ends, if indeed it does ‘begin’ and ‘end’. I actually like what GG himself said about it, and that is, one is working class when it is necessary to work to earn an income in order to survive. But GG when elaborating on it shifts those goalposts creating a sort of haze, and calls the likes of Paul McCartney and Wayne Rooney working class, because at some stage in their lives they had to work in order to survive.

Near the end of GG’s 3 hour show, Joe in Crewe – probably the best contributor on the subject said “…by accumulating wealth you then transcend the working class” and I think he was spot on. P.S. my name is not Joe and I’m not from Crewe.

It’s a pity Joe made a silly error by deviating slightly saying GG was wealthy and was earning a politicians salary of £65,000 over 20 years  *Groan*.  George, ever eagre to jump onto a silly impetuous and rankly trivial mistake, does what he is experienced in doing on the show and turns it into a bit of a straw man. GG corrects the MP salary (Now £60k pa, 2.4 times the national average – going by Joes figures) and says he has no savings and has no property that is un-mortgaged. Well so what Gorge? One can own a £5M house in London but with a mortgage. One could liquidate that asset (albeit not very quickly) and be very wealthy indeed. One might have paid 4.8M out of ones own pocket, only taking a 200K bank loan to cover the rest, or one could own 20 properties and have a mortgage on all of them, and if necessary, one could liquidate just one of those assets enabling the mortgage of the remaining 19 (or even say only 3) properties to be paid off. If I put a point like that to George, assuming he hadn’t cut me off by now and move onto the next caller, he would probably say “I don’t own a 5M house”. His house could for sake of argument be £4M in value, yet he wouldn’t be lying and his conscience would be clear in denying the illustrative value. No doubt if one was to try and pursue this point by say asking him “is it a £4,999,999 house then?” and so on until the point could be made, GG would almost surely say “that’s none of your business” and THEN cut me off.

When GG thinks he’s made a bit of a straw man and starts belting away it, he certainly doesn’t like it if the straw man animates itself or is animated by the caller, but he has the luxury of then saying words akin to “here’s our next caller…”

Getting back to what Joe said, after making GG’s blood warm, Joe says “as far as I’m concerned, wealth is the determinant of class” – and I agree.

“In that case Joe, I suppose Wayne Rooney isn’t working class, Coleen isn’t working class. Are you serious?” [who Colleen is I don’t know]

Well, I recall a post-match interview with a young Wayne Rooney, some years back now admittedly, but after the interview the commentators said something like “tell you what, its a good thing he’s good at football” – It could have been Mark Lawernson. If you saw the interview you’d know exactly why that was said that. Rooney showed a rather embarrassing level of intellect and comprehension, as if anything other than footie talk would have made Rooney think the interviewer was talking a foreign language. Perhaps it wasn’t representative of Mr. Rooney – we all have our off days, but I’d hazard a guess that our Wayne isn’t that bright.

I am sure GG was putting Wayne Rooney in the Working Class set because he was dumb or from humble stock or had a speech impediment. I suspect the “breed” issue is the foundational factor upon which he assigns class, being why he designates Paul McCartney and Wayne Rooney as Working Class. I don’t think this just from this one show, but from listening to him for quite some time. He has scoffed (sneered wouldn’t be too far wrong a description) at Toffs in the past, i.e. someone who has rung up the show, someone who GG knows little if anything about, but who has (as GG regards) a ‘posh’ accent. Not all ‘posh’ accent people are worthy of contempt. 

GG retorted “what is he[Rooney] then Middle class?” – Actually that’s probably a lot better description than Working Class.

Joes reply (despite his voice showing signs of ‘tension/panic’) is spot on “He’s upper class in wealth” – But I suspect GG’s overriding toff based vision of class appears to have sealed off his ears to what actually Joe said. George calm down!, Joe said “He’s upper class IN WEALTH”. GG replied “He’s upper class now? {announcing to his audience} Wayne Rooney is Upper Class – Your havin a laugh!”

Guess what? Georges next words are… “Here’s Ryan in Motherwell”

Although mistaken in thinking only silly teenagers and similarly immature people were the ones to repeat ad nauseum TV celebs catchphrases, I am not mistaken in believing Joe is right. Wayne Rooney’s accumulation of wealth (whether one can sit comfortably at the magnitude of it isn’t the issue) means he never again has to work a day in his life ever again if he so chose. Wayne has indeed left the Working Class. Bully for him. It’s difficult to begrudge that of anyone who has worked hard for success.

I don’t think one MUST be bound by a social definition such as class, as ones status and perceptions can change as we drift through life. Why should one be bound by a definition which means different things to different people? Indeed such string affiliations with class sits peculiarly amongst those for whom one would imagine would like to see a classless society. 

After listening to the meanings of class in his show and thinking about it, for what it’s worth, here’s largely how I see Class.

It is divided primarily but not exclusively according to financial status and social status, with these two divisors being coupled to various degrees depending on class label.

1) Upper class. A member of a quite small genetic pool, whose ancestors and associated family members have maintained persistently high, often excessive levels of wealth, and because of these factors, they consider themselves as superior to others who do not share similar attributes.  However, others themselves not of the upper class, may infact elevate them to a position of superiority in comparison to their fellow man.

2) Financial upper class. Someone with a large degree of wealth but is not regarded as coming from an elitist or pedigree* lineage.

3) Middle class. A member of a financial class that has little difficulty in daily life to gain possession of assets which may be thought of as essential for the stereotypical western view of living – provably owned house, privately owned transport, one ‘big’ holiday a year. The wealth for this level of living is often credit, which most members of this class will be able to clear after a period of time.

3) Working Class. Someone who finds it necessary to work in order to sustain themselves. One distinguishing factor between Middle class and Working Class is how close one is to moving into the Upper class above or below. I would put working class people as those far more likely to enter the lower class, and Middle class least likely to enter the lower class. Working class therefore shows some properties of being semi-intermediate class.

4) Lower Class. People whose income plays a significant bearing on their daily life, in terms of choice of food, ability to commute, and availability of accommodation and the education they can get. Consequently Lower Class people are thought of as ‘stupid’. Lower class people are often expected to follow directives issued by classes above them. Darker skin colour, use of dialects, regional accent, literacy, and hygene  standards are often factors which may assist in the categorization of people as being of the lower class.

5) Last class worth mentioning = Scum class (You scribe the explanation behind the label) Scum Class are people like Tony bLiar, BuSh, Aznar, Howard, Hitler, Attaturk, Pol Pot, Zionists… You get the pic.

The Upper, Middle and Lower labels are, or so it seems to me, a near pure quantification of wealth assessment. I’ve even heard the term upper-middle class seemingly to categorise people in the bridge between excessive wealth and simple comfortable wealth. Naturally, because Working class has neither the upper, middle or lower prefix, reference to economic status is diluted. (Just the kind of thing I’d want people to describe themselves as if I was a stinking rich elitist).

Isn’t it more than reasonable for me to imagine one can be amongst the economic Upper class despite being a commoner, and not entering the ‘genetic’ upper class?

Of course there are cross-overs and exceptions in all this. I don’t think any classification involving ‘fuzzy logic humans’ can ever neatly pigeon hole ALL its members of a population, but I think those classifications are pretty good.

If one spent all his liquid/cash wealth on buying (mortgage of amount included of course) prime real-estate in Tokyo, Paris, Rome, Beverly Hills, or Melbourne. What class is she now? If I said before all that, the purchaser was a member of the Gothe-Sax-Coburgs (the family that renamed themselves Windsors) then I have a strong feeling GG would have said “He’s Upper Class.” If however I said the purchaser was Wayne Rooney, my feeling is equally strong that GG would have said “he’s working class”.

The point is, if I’m not repeating myself, that GG’s vision of “Class” seems to be dominated on the grounds of genetics and disdain for toffs, rather than a more thoughtful, less socialist-worker-class-snobbishness, perception of it.    

* Pedigree: Especially amongst occidentals, bears correlation to the number of people ones ancestors have murdered or oppressed.

  

 


Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!

JUST:

JUST - International Movement for a Just World

ICH:

Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
May 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Advertisements