It's not really very difficult to upset George Galloway, is it? Apparently he flounced out of a debate at the UCC last night. In the debate on US Foreign Policy, organised by the UCC Philosophical Society, Mr. Galloway was proposing the motion 'That This House Believe's US Foreign Policy is the Biggest Crime Since World War II' against Dublin-based TV producer and journalist, Gerry Gregg. The story continues on the UCC website HERE...
Bit touchy, isn't he?
28 comments:
Typo. You rite worse than what I do.
Good for Gerry Gregg not being intimidated by the pompous permatanned knobhead's usual blustering and bullying. (Not to mention his ridiculous arguments).
And what an indictment of our education system that people actually voted for him.
A legend in his own lunchtime
This is par for the course with George. At a Cambridge Union debate in which I spoke against him last year, he repeatedly threatened to walk out (and at one stage did, before being sweet-talked back by the Union President) following (inter alia) Bruce Anderson's decision not to shake his hand. It was a great moment. "I don't shake the hand of unconvicted criminals" said Bruce.
(All comparisons to Arsene Wenger strictly inappropriate, Ed.).
Galloway is a Stalinist and would have had his opponent shot if he had been in charge.
This man is an affront to democracy.
Death to the infidel! Behead him!
(I can say that, can't I?)
I'd like to see him get so angry his head explodes like a packet of nic nacs. What a pompous angry inch.
Guthrum: lol. Legend as in leg-end me thinks.
So... the Mariam Appeal's accounts have turned up then? No? Then shut it, George.
Typical Galloway, if he is unable to shout down his opponent he is lost.
I will admint that he went up in my estimation over the senate hearings debacle. However his outspoken support of Hezbollah and the palestinian suicide bombers, whom he labels as freedom fighters, makes me sick.
Would he have shown the same support for the IRA?.
He is an insignificant Little tosspot, would he have the balls to stand on the streets of New York and voice his opinions?. I would be one of the first to chip in for his plane ticket, (green tax or not)
I think he had a case that the chair should have insisted on the remarks not being repeated within the debate.
GG should be put down forthwith.
Anybody who goes to the Middle East and talks like a KKK member ought to have been strangled at birth.
(That'll get me into trouble)
Who would continue to participate in a debate where unsubstantiated allegations were repeatedly levelled at them? Particularly if those remarks had nothing to do with the motion. It may be an old debating trick but it doesn't say much for the substance or maturity of Gerry Gregg's argument. The fact that the website reports that 40% of the audience walked out with Mr Galloway suggests something more than a fit of pique.
You can download his podcast at TalkSport - most amusing. Get him 18DS.
His 15 minutes is up. He is a bore. Who cares what he does? He just isn't interesting.
Maybe the wifes cash settlement wasn't enough to keep her silent.
This is very much in character for that type of man. Very easy to wind up - I've done it many times to such types, which, of course, doesn't say a hell of a lot for me. Rog used the terms blustering and bullying here. Sadly, this is so with al George.
He really has lost the plot , Galloway, hasn't he?
Anyway great to see my alma mater being mentioned on your blog. Well worth a visit next time you are in Ireland.
(and also good to see that the motion was defeated)
'Touchy' is NuConservative speak for 'of a wanker', I take it?
What exactly were these remarks? THe like you have provided does not say.
What relevance are allegations about Galloway in a debate about US Foreign Policy?
Typical kind of attack on an individual without specific detail or proof.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned on Iain Dale's Diary, but he had a bit of an issue at the Oxford Union Society recently as well. Now OK, Oxford is, as Stephen Fry memorably put it, "a complete dump", but there is no need for this.
Story at Drink-soaked Trokskyite Popinjays For WAR (one of my favourite site names).
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.blogspot.com/
2006/10/galloway-man-of-charm-and-wit.html
(sorry - you'll have to add the two parts of the title together. Can't work out a better way, unless Iain posts a link)
I wonder what his constituents would think of "I don't represent anyone's views. I represent me. I don't give a f**k what anyone else thinks"?
Richard
Thanks for the link to the uncorroborated, highly biased hearsay.
Whether he said that or not makes no real difference. After all, he will still be representing the views of people in this country. Further, he has been a champion of the anti war movement, one of the few to speak out against the undemocratic, authoritarian one party state we've found ourselves in. He's bound to be attacked by people - turn him into the bogeyman because rational arguments against his points are transparent.
UK-events,
Utter nonsense. If, for example, Galloway was talking about Iraq (and let's face it he probably would have been) it is perfectly legitimate to bring up his involvement with Saddam Hussein (he was, after all, 'strong and indefatigable' according to GG).
It would also be perfectly appropriate to call him a terrorist apologist. That is what he is, after all.
RS
http://conservativemindc4.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-date-with-boy-george.html
http://conservativemindc4.blogspot.com/2005/10/george-galloway-update.html
>Utter nonsense. If, for example, Galloway was talking about Iraq (and let's face it he probably would have been) it is perfectly legitimate to bring up his involvement with Saddam Hussein (he was, after all, 'strong and indefatigable' according to GG).
We didnt go into Iraq to deal with Saddam* we went in because he had WMD. Did we not?
*Allegedly.
According to Blair and Bush the capture of Saddam was an added bonus, not the reason for going in. Good job really given that the U.N. charter prohibits regime change.
So no, his relationship with Saddam isn't really relevant and he is entitled to get rattled if that was indeed the case. That said, I question the source of the claims. It would appear the small clique of Politicians and Media like to conspire and demonise people who don't share their view on the world.
uk-events
Uncorroborated? Hearsay? If you actually look through it the item is as well-corroborated as any internet content ever can be. People who claim to have been present have written to corroborate it. It would be easy to further corroborate with staff of the Oxford Union, unlike most of what is written on the internet. So if that is not good enough for you, then you shouldn't be involved in anything to do with blogging!
"... rational arguments against his points are transparent ..."
No, the problem is completely different. He has no rational arguments, just bluster and volume. They are not subject to rational debate.
"We didnt go into Iraq to deal with Saddam"
Errrrrmmmmmm ... of course we did. Who do you think was developing the WMD programmes? How do you think he was doing so and still posig such a danger, despite UN sactions, except by the largest corruption ever discoverd, corruption that has documented links to Galloway? So surely in any comment on the second Gulf War one could not possibly make meaningful comment without considering that corruption.
No-one is needed to demonise Galloway. He made common cause with a viscious, racist, murdering dictator and supporter of terrorism against democratic countries who has caused the deaths of millions of people in his greed for power. He did so for no possible benefit except to his own ego and probably his own pocket. He called upon people to attack our soldiers, which makes him a traitor. He demonises himself quite adequately.
P.S. I forgot to point out that had uk-events read the link, he would have seen the intro "Interesting if it's true" (my emphasis).
According to the person who was told by Gslloway (at the Oxford Union) that he doesn't give a *** etc, the incident was recorded on a friend's telephone.
That was about a week or so ago. They were going to share it with the world "after the weekend".
We're still waiting. Could it be that it never actually happened?
Is someone telling lies about Galloway?
Jenny
Have you ever tried to record any sound on your telephone? I have, on a good recent model (Sony Ericsson k750i), and it was the sound of 11 Spitfires flying past close by at Duxford, not exactly quiet (sad, but I wanted a new ring tone). I got nothing that was audible beyond a faint hum.
Unless the person actually held the microphone to Galloway's mouth, which is unlikely, I doubt if anything was recorded. I suspect disappointment in the result is the reason that it has not been posted or that any recording that is on the internet (I assume you haven't looked at every website that mentioned this, there were quite a few and the original requires registration which is restricted, so we don't know for a fact it is not there) would not gain wide publicity.
I must say that knowing the limitations of phones I never expected the recording to be important, hence I had not noticed that it had not appeared.
He came to my uni yesterday and I went along just out of interest. There was someone who brought up an article in Pink News and accused George Galloway of homophobia, to which he went absolutely ape. I could feel the vibe in the room at that point as most of us were on the side of the guy who asked the question. He also spent loads of time criticising other MP's - a bit rich, I think, for someone who's never in Parliament.
Post a Comment