Galloway not the hero he is made out to be

British MP George Galloway has drawn international attention for his stance against U.S. intervention in Iraq, his scathing chastisement of the Bush administration at Sen. Norm Coleman's committee hearings on the U.N. oil for food program, as well as his part in curbing the domination of Tony Blair's Labor Party in the United Kingdom.

His upcoming appearance at the Wisconsin Union Theater is sure to pack the house with local anti-war activists.

However, there are some inconvenient facts about Galloway that aren't often reported in the American press. What has the American Press reported? Whatever one's opinion about the proved lies about WMDs and links between Hussein and bin Laden that were used to justify the Bush administration's war in Iraq, or the gross incompetence and misdirected priorities that allowed bin Laden’s family to flee the US, and the terrorist himself to flee the US Army in Afghanistan, no one who claims to be a progressive ought to have anything to do with Galloway, a dishonest, authoritarian reactionary who swiftly reacted to counter the charges leveled at him by US government officials who seldom have their authority, hubris, and distortions of the truth challenged by citizens and the media at home.

Galloway has shown himself to be a supporter of innocent people who are tyrannized in various tyrannical dictatorships installed and abetted by the United States and Britain that dominate the Middle East. In the early stages of the war in Iraq, he was accused of publicly encouraging these other states to fight alongside Saddam Hussein's army. More likely, Galloway’s crime of using his sharp and satirical tongue offended most those who had no qualms about their own crimes of waging genocide against the Iraqi people through brutal economic sanctions, bombing raids, and a later full scale “pre-emptive” invasion (for the sake of filling their automobile gas tanks). When Galloway was ousted from the Labour Party by committee, he likened its proceedings against him as a “show-trial” and “kangaroo court.” He has spoken against a dictated political independence for Lebanon, and said, “Syria is exposed to foreign pressure because she represents the last castle of the Arab dignity and the Arab rights." (Nothing about fascism, or pan-Arabism).

Most notoriously, he has had two civil public meetings with Saddam Hussein-- (the same number as Donald Rumsfeld) to encourage diplomatic dialog, and not to sell him bombs. Galloway infamously declared to Hussein "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." He later tried to downplay this, suggesting that he was referring to the resilience of the whole Iraqi population in the face of Western aggression. That, at any rate, sounds better than to say he was simply trying to win concessions for getting UN inspectors into Iraq by flattering a vain and monstrous dictator.

Although he has had cordial relationships with the some Iraqis who hoped to dominate Iraqi politics (like the urbane and intellectual Tariq Aziz), he has consistently opposed the brutal actions Hussein took against his own people.

He has expressed his understanding why an "insurgency" has arisen in Iraq and why formerly opposed groups are uniting against what they view as a greater evil: an occupation of Iraq by a foreign imperial power. He has likened some Iraqi Communist Party operatives who collaborated with the US occupation enforced interim government as being seen by the Iraqi resistance as collaborators, even going so far as to compare them to the Norwegian quislings who cooperated with the Nazis in occupied Europe.

He has often held unconventional and controversial opinions in the past. He supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan while the United States supported mercenary armies led by people like Osama bin Laden and later described the demise of the U.S.S.R. as the greatest catastrophe of his life . He also held controversial opinions about evolving conflicts and events in Pakistan-- not surprising as a knowledgeable expert.

He has shown no hesitation in making common cause with diverse interest groups in order to further his strong political convictions. His own Respect Party is made up of a surprisingly united coalition of many who are opposed to Britain’s participation in the Iraq War. Galloway, himself an MP, is a strict Catholic: He opposes abortion, the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research and euthanasia.

While his anti-war credentials are not in doubt, I would suggest that the peace movement listen to what Galloway has to say about galvanizing opposition against an immoral, costly, and devastating war.

If their protest is truly based on a call for a more just, free and humane world, then they need to see Mr. Galloway for what he is, and judge him by the facts.

Galloway is an apologist for Stalinism, fascism, and jihadism all at the same time. That is his most notable political achievement.

"Galloway is an apologist for Stalinism, fascism, and jihadism all at the same time"

So your saying hes an apologist for totalitarianism or these these actual ideologies? Galloway's Socialst economic views would seem to contradict with fascism, his Catholocism and willingness to support freedom of religion would seem to contradict with fundamentalism and his support for freedoim of speech and willingness to risk arrest by pushing the boundaries of that in the UK suggests that he wouldnt have done well under a Stalinist state. Since its pretty clear that Galloway doesnt openly support any of these 3 things you accuse him of you might want to be more specific as to what you are accusing him of (for example does fascism mean support for Saddam? Does jihadism mean support for the Iraqi resistance? Does Stalinism mean support for N Korea...)

Galloway opposed the invasion of Iraq and is accused of supporting better ties between the UK and Iraq under Saddam (back when he was in power) but thats not the same thing as supporting Saddam. Just as those who supported better ties between the USSR and the US during the Cold War were supporting a de-escalation of conflict not supporting the current state of the USSR at the time. Not distinguishing between the two would be like saying that those who opposed the red scare tactics of McCarthy must have been apologists for Stalin.

In terms of his statements about the Iraqi Resistance, I dont see anything he says as supportive of Islamic fundamentalism unless you are arguing that vague statements about a right to resist implies support for a religious ideology of some of those resisting.

Galloway does have some rather right-wing views on some subjects and you can go after those things but it seems like most people denouncing Galloway use hyperbolic statements claiming he supports things he clearly doesnt. "Apologist" is a pretty nasty term for anyone to use when arguing since its a sneaky way of implying support while only having to prove that someone defends something (its a slightly more underhanded form of guilt by association). Those defending aparthied used the charge of apologist to try to link those who opposed aparthied with necklacing. Those who support Gitmo accuse those who thiink peopel whould have some right to a trial as being apologists for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. To defend people and fight for causes that effect large groups of people does not imply support for everything viewed by those one is defending. Opposing an invasion of N Korea isnt the same thing as supporting the totalitarian regime there no matter how much peopel like to throw around words like apologist.

Galloway is a creep. Any self respesting radical should oppose this guy. Here are some of his quotes, including pro Sadam, pro-mass murder of Shia and Kurds, pro Syrian dictatorship quotes and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

http://hitchensweb.com/GallowayLeafletFINAL.pdf

Many of those quotes could have be taken out of context and the speech to Saddam is one that I thought was partially debunked.

One could try to argue why those quotes are justified in another context but when they come from Hitchen's website thats a little dangerous since he is such an underhanded liar. After his fake quotes he claimed were by Cindy Sheehan I dont think its worth treating him as a someone one should be linking to if you want accurate quotes. To even respond to things by Hitchens would be acting as an apologist for fascism.

George Galloway threw a big monkey wrench into the zionists' "let's take down every non-aligned government in the mid-east" wet dream, so naturally he's been added to their "all-time demon" fetish list. Expect to keep hearing about the demon galloway for the next 500 years

Galloway has a reputation as a fiery left-winger and advocates redistribution of wealth, greater spending on welfare benefits, and extensive nationalisation of large industries. He opposes Scottish independence and supports the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Raised as a Roman Catholic, he left the church for some time but returned to Christian belief in his mid-20s, and he is opposed to abortion, although he supports RESPECT's pro-choice stance. He also supported the equalisation of the age of consent for homosexuality. As a Labour MP, he was a member of the Socialist Campaign Group. In the 2001 Parliament, he voted against the whip 27 times. During the 2001-02 session he was the 9th most rebellious Labour MP.

Galloway has attracted most attention for his comments on foreign policy, taking a special interest in Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. His support for the Palestinian cause began in 1974 when he met a Palestinian activist in Dundee; he converted the rest of the Dundee Labour Party which flew the Palestinian flag over the Town Hall and twinned the city with Nablus. [5]

In an interview with the Guardian [6], Galloway outlined his political views in relation to the Soviet Union:

"I am on the anti-imperialist left." The Stalinist left? "I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be making a rod for your own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe." [6]

Galloway regards Fidel Castro's Cuba as "a remarkable society" and "a model for the world." He has said Castro is "not a dictator, not at all", and described him as "the greatest man I have met." When there was a coup in Pakistan, he wrote, "In poor third world countries like Pakistan, politics is too important to be left to petty squabbling politicians. Pakistan is always on the brink of breaking apart into its widely disparate components. Only the armed forces can really be counted on to hold such a country together ... Democracy is a means, not an end in itself".

In the late 1970s, Galloway was a founding member of the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq (CARDRI), which campaigned against Saddam Hussein's regime in response to its suppression of the Iraqi Communist Party. He was critical of America and Britain's later role in supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War and was involved in protests at Iraq's cultural centre in London in the 1980s.

Galloway opposed the 1991 Gulf War and was critical of the effect the subsequent sanctions had on the people of Iraq. He visited Iraq several times and met senior government figures. His involvement earned him the nickname the "member for Baghdad Central". In 1994, Galloway faced some of his strongest criticism on his return from a Middle-Eastern visit during which he had met Saddam Hussein ostensibly "to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war". At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and infamously ended his speech with the phrase "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." [7]

In the speech, Galloway clearly is addressing Saddam in support of his fight against U.N. sanctions, the policies of the U.S. and U.K. governments, and Israel ("hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds" [preceding words in Arabic which mean, "until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem"]). When later pressed to explain why he would make such a speech, he said that it was for the benefit of the Iraqi people, collectively.

In 1999, Galloway was criticised for spending Christmas in Iraq with Tariq Aziz, the then Deputy Prime Minister. In the May 17, 2005 hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Galloway stated that he had had "many" meetings with Tariq Aziz, "more than ten", and characterized their relationship as "friendly". An archived version is available. [8]

In a House of Commons debate on 6 March 2002, Foreign Office Minister Ben Bradshaw said of Galloway that he "had ... made a career of being not just an apologist, but a mouthpiece, for the Iraqi regime over many years." Galloway called the Minister a liar and refused to withdraw, resulting in the suspension of the sitting. Bradshaw later withdrew his allegation, and Galloway apologised for using unparliamentary language. Later in 2002 Galloway returned to Iraq, where he met Saddam Hussein for a second time; according to Galloway, the intention of the trip was to try and persuade Hussein to re-admit Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country. In his Senate testimony, Galloway noted that he had met Saddam "exactly the same number of times as [U.S. Secretary of Defense] Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns." [9]

Giving evidence in his libel case against the Daily Telegraph 2004 (see below), Galloway insisted that he had been a prominent member of organisations that campaigned against Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s, when he was critical of the role the government of Margaret Thatcher took in arming and supporting Saddam. Veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell commented in April 2003, during the controversy preceding Galloway's expulsion from the Labour Party, that "There is a history here. In the mid-1980s there was only one MP that I can recollect making speeches about human rights in Iraq and this was George Galloway." [10] Given that his more controversial statements did not occur until after the Gulf War in 1991 this was not proof that his feelings may not have changed. However, he has recently testified in court that he regarded Saddam as a "bestial dictator" and would have welcomed his removal from power, but not by means of a military attack on Iraq.

However, just a few months later, Galloway called for the release of Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister, without charge, describing him as "an eminent diplomatic and intellectual person." During Saddam's government, Galloway holidayed and even disco-danced with Saddam's foreign minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

Galloway's friendly relationship with Saddam is a bit unseemly but as a government official its hard to see how meeting and being diplomatic with Saddam was really that different from any other government leader meeting with leaders of a totalitarian country. Wanting good relations doesnt mean support as anyone who ever was involved with the antinuclear mnovement during the Cold War should know well.

I am curious about all the stuff about his relationship with Aziz. It is used to demonize him but aside from Aziz's association with a brutal country was he actually involved in any attrocities? Bush may be guilty of war crimes but would you use guilt by association to attack someone defending Ari Fleisher if he were arrested and jailed (with risk of execution) for his role in the Bush administration?

. . . . explain why the Galloway critics here hate him.

After all, their political friends, Bush, Sharon, Blair and the neo-conservatives, have all done business, often frequently, with the regimes that they condemn Galloway for engaging in one form or another.

No, they hate him for two reasons: (1) he has shattered the public credibility of the imperial American enterprise in Iraq; and (2) he opposes the neoliberal project, with its emphasis upon privatization and the dismantlement of public power for the benefit of finance capital.

I don't agree with everything that Galloway has said or done, but these two stances put him miles ahead of his critics and their favorite political leaders

--Richard

Sorry Richard

I also oppose
1) the US imperial intervention, and
2) the neoliberal project.

Galloway is a clown that plays footsy with
1. Stalinism: The collapse of the soviet union was the worst day of his life.
2. Fascism: He supports the Syrian dictatorship. A recent quote: "I was very impressed by his knowledge, by his sharpness, by his flexible mind. I was very, very impressed… Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her President."
3. Jihadism: He apologizes for the Jihadists in Iraq who kill leftists, innocent Shias, children, and trade unionists among others.
4. He supported Saddam's slaughter of the Shia following Gulf War I.
5. The guy is also anti-abortion and anti-gay to boot.

Galloway is an embarrassment to those who think the left should be libertarian not totalitarian.

Hopefully this guy won't be the face of the anti-war movement like Jane Fonda was for the Vietnam war...... Oh yeah I almost forget he's on tour with Jane Fonda......

You are trying to sound like a reasonable person who doesnt like Galloway for legitimate reasons but then you go and source HItchens... Hitchen's isnt just rightwing hes also an underhanded liar who makes up quotes to smear those who dont agree with his support for war.... There was time a few years ago when someone debating Hitchens or using him to back up arguments might have made sense but hes running scared right now and smearing people like Cindy Sheehan with false quotes. Now hes not only untrustworthy but the type of person where you feel like you should almost judge anyone posting links to him via guilt by association.

The quotes Hitchen's mention are a mixture of translations of things Galloway said while in Iraq which are unsourced (I doubt HItchens was there to record them) and thing that would be ok if written in certain contexts. Many Kurds and Shias did support Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam did use his totalitarian power to create a national identity where one didnt really exist in a strong form before, and the Iraqi economy imporoved under Saddam before the Iran-Iraq war. I could see see people tortured by Saddam and having so sympathy for him saying that such things are true. I dont see how those quotes are supposed to put Galloway in a bad light. His statement praising Saddam is also potentially out of context (if its true which is hard to say since Hitchen is good at distorting facts to make people argue defensively against lies that he finds useful); at worst if the quotes are "real" then its a kiss ass statement by someone meeting a world leader and at best its comparable to saying that Galloway supports Blair for calling him "right honorable" on the floor of Parilament.

If you had some real facts about Galloway from a neutral source and were willing to argue rather than just name call I might even agree with you but even though I'm sure I have issues with some things about Galloway I dont think hes quite as mush of a Stalinist as you. He says hes not a Stalinist and you probabluy do too. He is bombastic but he does back up what he says which makes me more likely to believe him than you when he says hes not a Stalinist (and is clearly neither a fascist or a jihadist since he is fighting for more religious and civil freedoms in Britian, not less)

---

>>"clown" "footsy"
no substance there

"Stalinism: The collapse of the soviet union was the worst day of his life."
Can you source this accusation?
Does he mean the fall of the Berlin wall or when Yeltsin took over?
Does he mean that the creation of a unipolar world with no check on US power was dangerous?

2. Fascism:
He supports the Syrian dictatorship. A recent quote:
"I was very impressed by his knowledge, by his sharpness, by his flexible mind. I was very, very impressed…"
Can you source this quote?
With all the people opposing John Roberts saying hes smart I dont see how saying that is supporting him.
"Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her President."
With the elipses I could see this being somehwo out of context. Can you provide a link to the context in which this was said?
If he actually said:
"With Iraq headed towards becoming an Islamic state and the risk of fundamentalim rising throughout the Middle East Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her President. While hes a totalitarian ruler who oppresses much of the population its still better than the alternative of a state using Sharia as law"
I could agree with that. He probably didnt mean anything like this but thats the problem with out of context quotes.

3. "Jihadism: He apologizes for the Jihadists in Iraq who kill leftists, innocent Shias, children, and trade unionists among others."
Can you source this allegation,
All those in the Iraqi resistance are not "Jihadists". Some are Baathists and some just want revenge against the US and Iraqi government for the killing or humiliation of relatives. I personally support the right of Iraqis to resist the US and a US imposed government but dont support most of the car bombings and the ideology of the groups fighting the US. There is a tinge of "if you dont support Bush's policies your supporting Bin Laden" in this accusation since clearly sympathizing with the Iraqi Resistance isnt the same as supporting "Jihadism" (which as a word doesnt mean much.. Im assuing you meant fundamentalist desires to create states ruled by Sharia law like the new Iraqi government is aiming for...?)

4. He supported Saddam's slaughter of the Shia following Gulf War I.
Thats just a lie. He did say things that sounded unsympathetic towards their plight but some of what he said was true. The Bush Sr inspired, but not supported, Shia uprising really did occur with predictable results. Saddam's actions were crimes against humanity that Galloway does seem willing to ignore but I wouldnt equate that with support (just as I wouldnt equate a European government being friendly with Putin with support for the genocide of the Chechens)

5. "The guy is also anti-abortion and anti-gay to boot."
Can you source that? With abortion being a nonissue in Britain (its at no risk of getting outlawed) I'm guessing your mainly just refering to statements he made about being religiously Catholic (which dont necessarilly even mean he would vote to make abortion illegal if it ever were to come up since one can be antiabortion and prochoice). The homophobic charge is more serious but Im wondering if your just refering to his bombastic way of criticizing Hitchens. If you look at the way that he and Hitchens fight you know they used to have something going on so I wouldnt read too much into that if thats all you can quote.

[Sorry Richard

[I also oppose
1) the US imperial intervention, and
2) the neoliberal project.

Galloway is a clown that plays footsy with
1. Stalinism: The collapse of the soviet union was the worst day of his life.
2. Fascism: He supports the Syrian dictatorship. A recent quote: "I was very impressed by his knowledge, by his sharpness, by his flexible mind. I was very, very impressed… Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her President."
3. Jihadism: He apologizes for the Jihadists in Iraq who kill leftists, innocent Shias, children, and trade unionists among others.
4. He supported Saddam's slaughter of the Shia following Gulf War I.
5. The guy is also anti-abortion and anti-gay to boot.

Galloway is an embarrassment to those who think the left should be libertarian not totalitarian.

Hopefully this guy won't be the face of the anti-war movement like Jane Fonda was for the Vietnam war...... Oh yeah I almost forget he's on tour with Jane Fonda......]


. . . that's why you rely on Hitchens so much, and use rhetoric that is straight out of FrontPageMag to make your points

I think that what we have here is a David Horowitz type posing as a antiwar, anti-imperialist, because the antiwar, anti-imperialist types I know would use a very different method of expressing their disagreement

as a point of comparison, you are about as credible as someone who purports to support gay marriage speaking in the rhetoric of Christian fundamentalism

there is an outside chance that this is coming from an antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo perspective, but I doubt it, because he would make his points in a more articulate, substantiated way, and I doubt that he would ever be caught in public citing Christopher Hitchens for anything other than drunken character assassination

and, from my reading of Hitchens' flyer that you posted, it doesn't support all of your claims, but does tend to suggest that Hitchens dislikes Galloway for exactly the reasons I mentioned, he opposes the war in Iraq and opposes the neoliberal project, both of which Hitchens supports

Galloway has a soft spot for old state socialists dictators, but the fact that he opposes military intervention against them doesn't mean that he supports them uncritically, as Hitchens suggests, and it doesn't require me or anyone else to support it

Galloway supports the right of the Iraqis to violently resist the occupation, as do I, that's another reason Hitchens loathes him, and I wonder, do you? If you are against the occupation, do you support resistance against it?

Galloway energized opposition to the war on both sides of the Atlantic, that's why you and Hitchins dislike him




--Richard

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=457&row=0

"We can't define ourselves as the "anti-Bush," blindly supporting those he opposes, and thereby letting the nitwit Napoleon in the White House pick our enemies for us. Nor can our revulsion for Bush's horrors throw us into the arms of swamp-things like George Galloway."

Really, folks. Just a reminder that it's not just the right who hates Galloway. Look a little closer and you'll see why.

@%<

. . . . . especially, as it shows that Palast is part of the Labour/Liberal "we can't leave Iraq until we stabilize the country" brigade

I've never said that Galloway is perfect, but it is unfortunate to see Palast fall in with the Blairites and consider Galloway's failings the equivalent of Bush's and Blair's

For example, Galloway visited Baghdad, and verbally praised Saddam; Reagan sold him weapons and provided him with agricultural credits

Galloway is associated with a charity that may have engaged in some funny business, and he, or people close to him, may have pocketed some money; Bush and Blair looted the country for billions, as they currently are forcing Iraq to accept a bogus constitution that will impose a neoliberal economic order upon the country

Galloway publicly acknowledges the right of Iraqis to violently resist the occupation and Palast construes this as support for Jihadis, and this is, of course, Palast's main gripe, as it is with Hitchens and others, Galloway follows the logic of the criminality of the war to its logical conclusion, that Iraqis therefore may violently resist it

one need only look at the last paragraph, where Palast talks about Galloway delighting the killers of Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey, which is odd, because my understanding is that even Cindy Sheehan acknowledges that her son was killed in a military action in Sadr City in early April 2004, where he was being sent to violently suppress people who wanted to end the occupation

in other words, Casey Sheehan was in a place where he had no business being, because Bush had put him there, using force against the populace to perpetuate the occupation in the face of a neighborhood rebellion

in this instance, contrary to what Palast implies, the people of Sadr City where in the right, and the US troops sent there, like Casey Sheehan, were in the wrong, regardless of whether they knew what they were doing or not, regardless of whether they supported it or not, and it is unfortunate to see Palast making such cheap, and erroneous use of Casey Sheehan's death

it does, however, as I said, exposure the real issue: Galloway's ability to mobilize people globally in support of Iraqi resistance to the occupation, while liberals in the US and Britain want to have their cake and eat it too, by saying the war was wrong, even as they support the troops who fought it and perpetuate the occupation, and deny Iraqis the right to defend themselves by overcoming it

indeed, under this approach the Iraqis themselves are rendered invisible in contrast to the ubiquitous emphasis upon the admittedly tragic deaths of US/UK troops, except, of course, when the resistance can be characterized solely as Islamic fundamentalist lunatics

personally, I don't support Galloway's acceptance of despotic regimes, but I do support his belief that the US has no business militarily replacing them and economically colonizing them, and I stand by what I have said, that the criticism of him is motivated by his effectiveness at presenting the anti-imperialist, anti-neoliberal case

(and, in gehrig's case, probably because Galloway has historically been a strong supporter of the Palestinians)

people should relate to Galloway as they would anyone other political figure, praise them when they are right, and criticize them when they are wrong, and, in my view, the things Galloway is right about (anti-imperialism and anti-neoliberalism) far outweigh where he is wrong

basically, this is part of an effort to exploit a tendency among liberals to demand antiseptic perfection in anyone who supports radical and progressive causes, while the right has no difficulty culling out the benefits and discarding the negatives of anyone who can help them achieve their goals, a common approach for anyone who lives in a society where coalitions are necessary, which partially explains why they have been so effective, and liberals have not

--Richard

from a post on the one of the KPFA threads:

['East Bay listener' (a.k.a. Petey?): "I have never once heard D. Bernstein ask a tough question of a lefty."

You mean like when Bernstein pointedly asked, right on the air, Greg Palast about his racist anti-Palestinian comments published in the (Jewish) Forward and also posted and challenged on Indybay? You mean when Bernstein even opened up the phone lines to even let listeners challenge Palast's evasive responses? You haven't really been listening.]

If true, could it be that Galloway's support for the Palastinians is motivating Palast as well as gehrig?

The amazing thing about the attack upon Galloway is its utter dishonesty. His critics complain about everything about him, except for what they really find objectionable.

--Richard

Another classic quote (lie) from Gruesome George Galloway---

"collaborator forces of the puppet regime in Baghdad" are "being attacked not because they are Shiites, but because they are collaborators."

Sorry RWF, Galloway is an apologist for the jihadis who are killing shiiites because THEY ARE SHIITES!!!! Blowing yourself up in a crowded market or on a street corner full of day laborers is mass murder of the most vicious and cruelest kind. But according to RWF this is "self-defense" against the Americans!!!

The left should stand against this barbarism.

US Troops Out Now.

" The left should stand against this barbarism. "

It doesnt make a difference if we do or dont. Its likely the goal of the attacks is to create a more antiSunni Shia fundamentalist state (see http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/magazine/11OSAMA.html ) to provoke a reaction in neghboring states with an ultimate goal of change there and not in Iraq. The way people in the US respond and whether they support or oppose the bombings doesnt really make one bit of difference except in terms of making some activists feel self-righteous and feel good when they denounce other activists for either being apologists for the US or the suicide bombers. If a bunch of crazy activists in the US seem to be supporting the bombing that probably undermines their effect more than the gut reaction of being appaled and supporting a Shia crackdown (since that result is exactly the goal of the attacks)

RWF: "If true, could it be that Galloway's support for the Pal[e]stinians is motivating Palast as well as gehrig? The amazing thing about the attack upon Galloway is its utter dishonesty. His critics complain about everything about him, except for what they really find objectionable."

Now, that's a classic example of a dishonest attack. First you hypothesize a mythical "real reason" for our not liking Gorgeous George, and then you condemn us for not being up front with the "real reason" _you_ made up in the first place. That's like saying, you're really only supporting Galloway because you have a moustache fetish, and it's really appallingly dishonest of you to praise everything about him _except_ the moustache that drew you to him in the first place."

Look into Gorgeous George a little more, and you'll see that it's not just those pesky Zi-i-i-ionists and right-wingers who think he's a demagogue. He's left quite a trail.

@%<

Sorry, that you're a 100% wrong, but politivcal positions matter including what the left has to say about the Iraq. Duh! Oh and by the way (by your logic) opposing racism would make one "self-righteous".

There is no serious left in this county, because the best the left can come up with is demogagues like Galloway and his tourmate Jane Fonda (Do you really have to wonder why most Americans ignore the left?)

PS Your analysis of the Iraq situation is just absurd. The Sunni resistance hardly wants a Shia fundamentalist state. Please don't argue here anymore you don't know shit.

"Sorry, that you're a 100% wrong, but politivcal positions matter including what the left has to say about the Iraq. Duh! Oh and by the way (by your logic) opposing racism would make one "self-righteous"."

Opposing racism is also purely "self-righteous" unless you can act apon it and try to do something. Since its a more local problem it is something people can do something about, unlike the Iraqi opposition. I would call someone always going around denouncing racism in the abstract but then acting racist themselves "self-righteous" and would probably prefer it if they just didnt act racist even if that meant they didnt talk about it.

"There is no serious left in this county, because the best the left can come up with is demogagues like Galloway and his tourmate Jane Fonda"

Jane Fonda and Galloway have no real support from anyone in the US (let alone on the radical left) and I can only see a few people (mostly rightwing people who dislike them) promoting either of them. Personally I dislike Galloway mainly because he debated Hitchens which gives Hitchens much more publicity than he deserves,

"(Do you really have to wonder why most Americans ignore the left?)"

Cindy Sheehan got a good amount of support and even ANSWER (despite all their problems) can pull more poeple out to protests than almost any other group . Its always funny to me how much right-wing talk radio goes on about how irrelevent the left is all day long and never talks about anything else; if the left were so irrelevent they would actually be talking about issues and not pretending to be victims of the left at the same time that they denounce it.

"PS Your analysis of the Iraq situation is just absurd. The Sunni resistance hardly wants a Shia fundamentalist state."

First off its not my analysis. I only sortof agree with the NYT magazine article. Secondly there isnt a unified "Sunni resistance" so even if the NYT is right it wouldnt apply to most of those fighting the US (but might apply to most of the suicide bombs against Shiites which are not supported by the majority of the insurgents). There are Sunni fundamentalists, secular nationalists who fear Shia rule and those with other agendas. The goal of a mass killing of Shias in car bombs isnt to make the Shia government give up but seems clearly aimed at provoking the Shia communities to start sending their militias in to fight against Sunnis.

"Please don't argue here anymore you don't know shit."

What did I say that offended you so much? You seem to come on here and spend most of your time smearing people with ad homenim attacks without really backing up what you say with real substance. I'm guessing you are either a right-winger pretending to be a leftist or a jaded leftist about to make the switch to being a Michael Savage fan (see I can make ad hominem attacks too) since your focus on Galloway and Jane Fonda when nobody else is talking about them seems odd.

Most of the quotes you use against Galloway are strangely out of context. The line of argument is similar to that one saw everywhere in the US after 9/11 where anyone in the media asking "why do they hate us?" was accused of supporting Bin Laden or being an apologist. Did Saddam kill Kurds and Shias because he thought they posed a threat to his rule or did he just do it because he was sadistic and wanted to kill them for personal reasons? Galloway does imply support in many quotes by his choice of word but a quote explaining motivation is not the same as support.

Its hard to know exactly what people are accusing Galloway of and even though it doesnt really matter (since if it werent for the Righties always blabbering on about him nobody would have heard about him) but the attacks seem broader and more aimed at antiwar protesters in general.

"Supporting" the Iraqi resistance can mean many different things:
1. not fighting against them
2. opposing the actions of some of those fighting against them
3. Trying to understand their motivation for almost purely academic reasons
4. Trying to explain their motivation so the causes can be cured rather than just the symptoms
5. Saying "they have a right to do what they are doing" while sitting 2000+ miles away and having no real ability to do anything about the conflict
6. Trying to encourage the Iraqi public to support the Iraqi resistance
7. Sending money to those fighting the US
8. Sending weapons to those fighting the US
9. going over and helping fight against the US

Galloway would be at most a hyperbolic version of #4 and the most radical activists in the Bay Area are really just #5 with most people taking on roles #2 and #3
Galloway was accused of helping Saddam get money (and making money himself by aiding Saddam) but those charges were discredited which is why Galloway won his lawsuit against the Telegraph ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Daily_Telegraph )

You quote Galloway as saying "collaborator forces of the puppet regime in Baghdad" are "being attacked not because they are Shiites, but because they are collaborators." Yet you disagree with the view that the attacks are being carried out to start a Civil War that the Shias are guaranteed to win in all of the country except the Kurdish portions (which will break away immediately once such a war starts).

If you hate Galloway for saying the attacks are due to government cooperation with the US and you disagree with the NYT magazine article claiming the attacks are aimed at destabilizing neighboring countries by forcing a Shia state hostile to Sunnis, what do you believe? Do you think the attacks are just being carried out by "bad people" who "hate our freedom"? Or do you just not like Galloway's use of the words "collaborator" and "puppet" and perhpas even agree with many of the quotes you use to demonize him?

Again, I'm finding myself defending Galloway when I dont really like him personally and am sure I disagree with much of his other political views. Perhaps that's the inentions of these types of posts. Galloway is obviously not nearly as bad as people trying to smear him make him out to be but they know that by attacking him the tendency for people to stand up to unfair attacks will make people rally around him. Trying to denounce Cindy Sheehan and New Orleans victims criticizing Bush just dont make for as good PR sound bytes as denouncing a loud Scottish politician who likes to swear and isnt careful about his choice of words.

Palast has heretical things to say on some things, but when it comes to Israel he stays very mum. Nonetheless he gives his position away with omissions and his steadfast agreement with the zionist line: Galloway's an asshole, gotta stay in there and kill more Iraqis, 9-11 skepticism is STOOPID, etc., etc. He's a quiet zionist. He loathes Galloway for the same reason all the other zionists do: Galloway's a thorn in the side of the empire that's underwriting Israel's insanity. It drives them nuts that he's getting so much exposure.

Magon, you are one of the most virulent hate-filled fact twisters I've ever seen on these threads. Your post 'a reply' is an acid-spewing geyser of distortions and vitriol. First you pose as a "leftist," then turn around and spew hatred at Jane Fonda. This is not a 'leftist' folks, this is a zionist who IMAGINES she's a leftist, but is actually a fascist just like the rest of them. It's a very common and creepy pattern, and not just among zionists. It's, like, half the US middle class now.

No, sorry Magon, Galloway's right about the Iraqi UNDERGROUND RESISTANCE attacking collaborators. When a country gets invaded by imperialist assholes, and certain traitors cross over and start helping them lock down their occupation, they pretty much deserve to get taken out. The exact same thing happened to Axis collaborators all over Europe and the Far East during WWII, but for some strange reason you can't see the parallels. Why on earth would that be, I wonder? The arrogant assurance of zionists that the 'herd' can't see through their game never fails to amaze me.

gehrig keeps harping on Galloway too, but by way of leaving his usual slime trail never gets down to brass tacks and says WHY. Just keeps dropping this stupid line "look a little closer," "look into Gorgeous George a little more," etc. More 'Jedi mind tricks' of course. gehrig won't state his case or reveal the truth of his grudge, so when Richard comments to this effect, an especially large glob of slime discharges from gehrig's spew-hole:

"Now, that's a classic example of a dishonest attack. First you hypothesize a mythical "real reason" for our not liking Gorgeous George, and then you condemn us for not being up front with the "real reason" _you_ made up in the first place."

Do you actually believe this gehrig? Or do you just think we're too stupid to know Richard laid his finger right on it? In other words are you insanely delusional or just insanely arrogant? You know, just by showing up here you pretty much prove that zionists have it in for Galloway big time

....
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS:
...
The slobbering dofan who they got because he's the son of the slobbering tyrant who came before him! How anyone with a tincture of socialist principle can actually speak in this way is beyond me, and I hope ladies and gentlemen, far beyond me and far beneath your contempt, thank you.

(sound of cheering and clapping and some booing)

ANNOUNCEMENT: George Galloway, your response.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: Well ah, ladies and gentlemen slobbering was the note that Mr Hitchens chose to end on, I'm not sure that was wise.

(sound of laughter from crowd)

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Bring it on! Bring it on!
....

Why would anyone want to listen to such awful personal attacks with almost no substance. People shouldnt debate people like Christopher Hitchens, they should ignore him just as you shouldnt debate Ann Coulter or David Duke since to do so legitimizes their views and lets them put forward lies in public forums. Hitchens afterall made up a long series of quotes from Cindy Sheehan or got it from some Rightwing blog and wrote an article for a major magazine containing the fake quote (denouncing Cindy as an anti-Semitie) and as far as I cant tell hasnt either apologized or defended the use of the quote (nobody else is using it anymore since everyone else realized it was fake)

"Galloway's right about the Iraqi UNDERGROUND RESISTANCE attacking collaborators. When a country gets invaded by imperialist assholes, and certain traitors cross over and start helping them lock down their occupation, they pretty much deserve to get taken out."


In reality this means that 80% of Iraqis are "collaborators". All Iraqi Shiites (as well as Kurds) are "collaborators" because the Sunni (not Iraqi) "resistance" is willing to setoff bombs in the middle of a crowd of day laborer Shiites, killing random people including children. A vicious sectarian act of ethnic mass murder if there ever was one-- but I guess since you get your info from Stalinists like Galloway and ANSWER -- You don't know what the fuck your talking about.

Galloway also is a sick apologist for the murder of Iraqi Trade unionists. American anti-imperialists, at the end of the day, end up supporting the assault on Iraqi working class organization because they support these vicious sectarian murderers.

PS The zionist conspiracy BS against Galloway is borderline antisemitism though you're probably to dense to realize it.

The world needs two, three, many thorns in the side of America.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.08.15/faces.html

FORWARD
AUGUST 15, 2003

Muckraking Crusader Creeps Onto the Bestseller List

By MAX GROSS
FORWARD STAFF


... Unlike some of his fellow Jewish lefties, Palast is not ready to dismiss antisemitism [I.E., CRITICISM OF ISRAEL] when he sees it. "The members of the Jewish left — and I certainly am one of them — are very glib about antisemitism and the dangers out there," he said. [YOU KNOW BRITISH JEWS JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT ANTI-SEMITISM -- ALTHOUGH IT'S BLACKS, ARABS, AND ANYONE WHO LOOKS LIKE THEM WHO ARE SEMI-REGULARLY BEING KILLED IN BRITAIN BY WHITE HOOLIGANS (who recently hatcheted a Black guy to death) OR COPS (who recently killed a totally unarmed Brazilian guy that the cops thought was Middle Eastern, and then COMPLETELY lied -- from start to finish -- about his actions and tried to totally frame him as a suicide bomber). BUT FOR ZIONISTS LIKE GEHRIG IT'S ONLY JEWS THAT REALLY MATTER.] "The British left is infused with the worst elements of antisemitism." [IS THIS THE SAME BRITISH LEFT THAT SOUNDLY OPPOSES ISRAEL'S OPPRESSION OF THE PALESTINIANS, ALL OTHER FORMS OF (ESPECIALLY, BRUTAL, RACIST) COLONIALISM, THE ANGLO-AMERICAN WAR & OCCUPATION IN IRAQ (THE LATTER, IF NOT PERHAPS THE FORMER, OF WHICH PALAST SUPPORTS) AND FACISM (LIKE THEY ONCE OPPOSED THE NAZI STATE)?]

He even sees antisemitism in the pages of his own newspaper.

"When the Hebrew teachers in Tehran, in Iran, were put on trial as spies for Israel — which was beyond unlikely [NO, ISRAEL WOULD NEVER USE SPIES WITH "HEBREW TEACHERS" -- OR "ART STUDENTS" AND "MOVING CO. EMPLOYEES" CAUGHT CHEERING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TWIN TOWERS IN NEW YORK -- AS COVERS] — my paper had an editorial by some fool saying, well, we shouldn't attack Iran [ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO ATTACK IRAN, FOR ISRAEL, LIKE WE BOMBED, INVADED, AND OCCUPIED IRAQ RESULTING IN WELL OVER 100,000 CIVILIAN DEATHS IS 0BVIOUSLY ANTI-SEMITIC!] — there's very good evidence, and we shouldn't vilify everyone George Bush says is our enemy," he said. "They want Israel to release people who are *ADMITTED* CHILD KILLERS[!!], but the Hebrew teachers should rightly be in jail."

Never one to compromise his opinions, when the Arab news channel Al-Jazeera offered Palast a job, he turned it down cold; he refers to the station as TNN, TERRORIST NEWS NETWORK. [!! -- REMEMBER ALL THOSE "TERRORIST" AL-JAZEERA JOURNALISTS IN THE DOCUMENTARY MOVIE "CONTROL ROOM"? -- YOU KNOW, LIKE TARIQ AYOUB, THE AL-JAZEERA JOURNALIST, ON TOP OF THE AL-JAZEERA BUILDING, KILLED WITH TWO MISSILES FROM A U.S. WARPLANE IN IRAQ?]

...

=================================================================

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1657614.php

3 Questions I Would Ask Greg Palast About Palestine and AIPAC

by AZ Thursday, Nov. 06, 2003 at 12:40 AM

===================================================================

http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2003/aug/aug05.html

Report:

August 5, 2003

Selection of Palestinian detainees to be released solely reflects Israeli criteria


==================================================================

P.S. You *'go'* Richard!

I talked with Palast after his speech at an appearance of his at MLK Middle School in Berkeley. I can assure you (gehrig) that he is a rabid, irrational, evasive, Zionist racist. Furthermore, when I later publicly confronted him at the Unitarian Fellowship in Berkeley -- to inform people of his rabid, racist Zionism -- the tough, big, bad, "investigative journalist" ran off like a scared rabbit.

At *MARTIN LUTHER KING* Middle School!! -- Greg Palast had his blonde, white, blue-eyed girlfriend/wife later come over and verbally attack me, and they when I verbally defended myself she acted and carried on like the big, tall Black man was attacking the helpless blonde, slender white girl! Palast didn't say anything about *that*. Palast is as slimey as the Bush administration conservatives he 'goes after'.

I believe that Greg Palast's "left-wing journalism" -- like his story about Black Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's outster from political office, without Palast *ever* mentioning the essential and indepensible role of the U.S. domestic Zionist lobby, or his stories about Black voter disenfranchisement -- even as the domestic Zionist lobby attacks or disenfranchises Black elected officials who don't kowtow to the Zionist lobby line -- is Greg Palast's *COVER* -- using Black people -- for his right-wing closet Zionism.

Greg Palast wouldn't be the only rabid Zionist (like "homelessness activist", Santa Cruz's, Bullshit Becky Johnson, who doesn't care about the more than half-century of Palestinian families -- men, women, including the elderly & children -- being evicted and homeless from their homes -- homes often rocketed, bombed, otherwise blown up, or bulldozed -- in Palestine) using "liberal/progressive" credentials as a cover for their rabid Zionism.

While there have been many courageous Jews who have sometimes put their lives on the line to defend Black people (like Andrew Goodman & Michael Schwerner, who sacrificed their lives), many other closet conservative Jews (like Greg Palast or Rabbi Marc Schneier -- who totally confected a phoney "MLK letter" "supporting Zionism" -- or sometimes Berkeley's Rabbi Michael Lerner, who uses Cornel West) have politically *USED* Black people and *EXPLOITED* Black suffering for decades, as well as the poor, as cover for their, otherwise, own closet right-wing agendas (typically Zionism), and some Jews (like members of the neocons) have directly oppressed Blacks and the poor themselves.

But then so too should racist subhumans like John Sabatino. Both are living, breathing Nazi animals even though their targets are superficially different. Both should be hunted down, beaten and if at all possible killed. Nazis and all other fascists/racists of all "races" and religions are by definition NOT human beings and therefore have NO human rights including the "right to life". Do not entertain their thoughts, do not debate them, CRUSH THEIR SKULLS! Beat them, pound them until buckets of blood come gushing out of their head and their final breath draws near. That is the only appropriate response to racist subhumans like Joe Anderson and John Sabatino.

JA nor anyone else should be 'killed". You must be a rightwinger or part of the religious right, since those are the only people calling for killing other people all the time.

Go away.

both the mercifully deleted John Sabatino -with his vile racist attacks on blacks and the not-deleted Joe Anderson (because his racist defamations and attacks are directed at a more fashionable target on the left) have no place in a egalitarian and just world. BOTH are racist subhumans. and it is YOU who is the rightwinger by your enabling of their Nazi views.

having been away for a few days, here are some additional comments

Galloway is noteworthy for his support of the Palestinians since the early 1970s, a time when such a public stance was extremely out of fashion, and frequently subjected the proponent to a torrent of verbal abuse

now, Magon shows up, purports to be a progressive, and speaks in the language of David Horowitz and FrontPageMag, a scene known for its long memory and persistence in attacking those it considers hostile to Israel

then, gehrig arrives, which is unusual, because he commonly, but not exclusively, participates here on the threads related to Israel (except when he gets the opportunity to dog nessie), and posts an article by Greg Palast that says little, but implies much

he does not otherwise provide any concrete statement of criticism, but just publishes the link and then later says things like, there are lots of people other than Zionists who dislike Galloway

indeed, this is true, and I have already presented my opinion of Galloway earlier in this thread, but it is noteworty, that in this case, Magon, gehrig and Palast all appear to be Zionists, yet all appear unwilling to acknowledge that this is a major reason that they dislike him so much

instead, consistent with the Horowitz, FrontPageMag approach, they toss around a lot of issues and statements, devoid of any context, with Magon exaggerating them, and gehrig, perhaps uncomfortable with being too closely associated with such hyperbole, implying them, but not explicitly stating them

perhaps, for example, gehrig recalls, as perhaps Magon does not, that Galloway asked to appear before Congress to address charges that he had profited from the oil for food program, and that the senators at the hearing were incapable of establishing any proof that he had

so, now, we have three reasons why Galloway is so reviled:

(1) support for the insurgency in Iraq
(2) opposition to the neoliberal project
(3) a long history of support for the Palestinians

but, as the effort here is to persuade the liberals and leftists to disavow Galloway (an urgent task, as he is effective at mobilizing people), none of them are acknowledged

--Richard

"JA is indeed a Nazi and Nazis should be KILLED!"

All GUTTERSNIPE *anonyMOUSE* *COWARDS* like you do is rant and shout WHILE YOU HIDE BEHIND ANONYMITY!

LET ME SHOW YOU FOR THE FUCKIN' ZIONIST RACIST ASS-WIPE ANONYMOUSE **COWARD** THAT YOU REALLY ARE!

SAY WHO YOU ARE -- AND **COME** AND ***GET*** ME!!

DO IT **YOURSELF** -- IF YOU'RE MAN ENOUGH.

I'LL BE WAITING.

one can tell when someone has argumentatively hit the zionists on the head and exposed them for what they are, when all a zionist can do is come back with death threats, but no logical counterarguments. zionist terrorist death threats. now thats a great way to counter a compelling argument. true anti-racists don't call for the murder of those who they argumentatively disagree with. actually, that's what vehement genuine racists do.

Yo Nazi troll, theres no argument on this thread, just bombast.

As you demonstrate, Jews and Judaism are a malignant racist cancer in our midst all of whose carriers must be lined up and physically destroyed. Every single Jew should be gassed to death in an oven -exactly as they falsely claim to have occured in World War II (if only there really HAD been a truly "final" solution!). As anti-imperialist and pro-justice activists we must hunt down and destroy these hideous race of subhuman sewer vermin wherever they live, work or infect-their synagouges of satan, community centers etc. SAVE HUMANITY: KILL ALL JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is racist garbage, probably posted here by a Zionist to smear anti-Zionists as racist. It is the Zionists themselves who are the racists. They are to Jews what Nazis are to Germans, an embarassment to an otherwise admirable people.

nessie: "They are to Jews what Nazis are to Germans, an embarassment to an otherwise admirable people."

... an "otherwise admirable people" nessie wants you to hate 99.5% of.

Really, nessie. Your pose as an "anti-racist" is shot to hell. Stick a fork in it. It's over.

@%<

The astounding hypocracy of our usual anti-zionists (a code word, like "Hebrew persuasion")! Although they rant about racism "The Jews", they are blind to real racism, typically their own.

i just love israel, although my close friends are beginning talk about israel's jim crow system? is this true?

truthfully, the jim crow thing is hurtful to my sensibilities.

also the bit about torturing children and bulldozing homes seems to me to be an overly aggressive type of jim crow.

people used to say that israel was a "light unto nations," however, i firmly believe in international law and favor a stronger sense of of morality and common decency.

i also think people in israel should be more respectful to the palestinians, after all they and the israeli jews are related by blood, both being semitic people.

you would think both would be proud of and support the other, declare peace, stop the jim crow laws.

also, palestine is a state with its own sovereignty, hurting it is a bad thing. palestine is a member of the united nations and is recognized by over 130 countries throughout the world. there are over 4 billion people in these countries that cry for justic and peace.

it's too bad that israel and america refuse to recognize palestine sovereignty. also, its a shame they won't allow palestine the right to vote at the u.n. that's very hurtful to israel's blood brothers and sisters.

why do we have to have this endless sectarian war between two middle east blood relatives?

that's just not right.

any thoughful comments?

Some of the very loudest applause also came when Galloway criticized Israel as yet another over half-century-long instance of the political double standards that the American govt -- let alone the historically and tragically ironic human rights double standards that Zionist Jews -- have continually practiced there!

And I hope there were plenty of Zionist spies in the audience to hear not only what Galloway had to say, but the almost thunderous applause -- and to see the several standing ovations -- he got.

One day, slowly, steadily and inevitably, it started to become the beginning of the end for American slavery, for genocidal Nazism, for American "Jim Crow" apartheid, for brutal direct European colonialism around the world, for the genocidal "American War" in Vietnam, for the Berlin Wall & the Iron Curtain, for South African apartheid, and now for Israeli Zionism in even the Western public's moral consciousness. Even the Sept 26 issue of Time Magazine asks on its cover, "Is It Too Late...?," for the Americans in Iraq.

Furthermore, I OPENLY, PUBLICLY, and UNABASHEDLY support the right -- and, when necessary, the *OBLIGATION* -- of ARMED resistance in Iraq and Palestine. Israel shows history's greatest moral warning: that the brutalized victims can become the brutal victimizers if they lose their moral compass and become chronically too self-absorbed. Yo Zionoids!: read the writing on The Israeli Apartheid Wall. One day it too will fall -- and Zionist European/American Jews will have to live with history's and humanity's judgement of what they too have done at the expense of millions of lives.