1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

"Smoking gun" regarding Galloway accusations

Discussion in 'Alley of Lingering Sighs' started by Dranalis DeAealth, Oct 25, 2005.

  1. Dranalis DeAealth

    Dranalis DeAealth Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4373764.stm

    If the evidence is as solid as is claimed - and somehow, I've yet to be entirely confident it is - then 'indefatigable' George is in for a rough time. Supposedly, the committee has evidence of:

    • Galloway personally solicited and was granted eight oil allocations totaling 23 million barrels from the Hussein government from 1999 through 2003;

    • Galloway’s wife, Dr. Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received approximately $150,000 in connection with one allocation of oil;

    • Galloway’s political campaign, the Mariam Appeal, received at least $446,000 in connection with several allocations granted under the Oil-for-Food Program;

    • Illegal “surcharge” payments in excess of $1.6 million were paid to the Hussein regime in connection with the oil allocations granted to Galloway and the Mariam Appeal; and

    • Galloway knowingly made false or misleading statements under oath before the Subcommittee at its hearing on May 17, 2005.

    It'll be interesting to see him attempt to rebut this now.
     
  2. Cúchulainn Gems: 28/31
    Latest gem: Star Sapphire


    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    1
    This says it all:

    "Isn't it ironic that on the one hand we are told that the likes of Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein are homicidal maniacs, and on the other they are the most trustworthy people in the world when it comes to providing testimony against George Galloway?"

    Roy McKay
    Galloway's spokesman
     
  3. Dranalis DeAealth

    Dranalis DeAealth Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    They're not relying on Aziz or Saddam; they're relying on, among other things, extensive banking records and a wide range of interviews of various figures at all levels, both outside the former regime and within it.

    I'm sure George would like to believe there was an American-lead conspiracy to wreck him based on lies and distortions, but unfortunately, that doesn't match the reality of the hard evidence increasingly building up against him.

    Of course, he'll always have the support of hard-left die-hards who care only for using every opportunity to attack America, and don't care a jot for the facts or the truth. But all reasonable people have long since parted company both with them and with George.
     
  4. Cúchulainn Gems: 28/31
    Latest gem: Star Sapphire


    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    1
    He seems to look forward to the challenge.

    May I ask what you base you last paragraph on?
     
  5. Taluntain

    Taluntain Resident Alpha and Omega Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Resourceful Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) BoM XenForo Migration Contributor [2015] (for helping support the migration to new forum software!)

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2000
    Messages:
    23,187
    Media:
    494
    Likes Received:
    510
    Gender:
    Male
    Probably habit, since the wide majority of people who support the Bush administration use the false accusations of "anti-Americanism" and the fantasy "leftist media bias" as a concluding arguments in most discussions. It's too bad really, because up to that point, people might actually take their posts seriously.
     
  6. T2Bruno

    T2Bruno The only source of knowledge is experience Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    9,740
    Media:
    15
    Likes Received:
    436
    Gender:
    Male
    Edit: Comment removed due to me becoming senile and misreading the paragraph in question (George = Bush instead of Galloway). Although I do think that assuming all people on one side of an argument are unreasonable is a bit of a stretch.

    I tend to find both sides of the political debate degenerate into the 'rabid dog' fights around here in equal measure.

    [ October 25, 2005, 20:09: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]
     
  7. Register Gems: 29/31
    Latest gem: Glittering Beljuril


    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2001
    Messages:
    3,146
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see the world all anywhere here, can you?
     
  8. T2Bruno

    T2Bruno The only source of knowledge is experience Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    9,740
    Media:
    15
    Likes Received:
    436
    Gender:
    Male
    Edit: My mistake -- I made the stupid assumption that George = Bush, not Galloway. Senility must be sinking in.
     
  9. Dranalis DeAealth

    Dranalis DeAealth Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    The simple fact that there are always people, no matter whatever the prevailing circumstances, will dislike, or even hate the west; equally as there are people who will always support whatever the west does just as blindly. For example, in the 1980's, the toppling of Saddam was a cause celebre amongst the British radical left and with George Galloway - the same sorts of people who now form the leadership of Respect and the Stop the War Campaign - and the west was attacked for it's stance on Iraq. After the first Gulf War, they almost entirely reversed this, and it lead to Galloway travelling to Baghdad to, grotesquely, salute Saddam for his "indefatigability", among other things.

    Many of these people who have formed around Galloway and the groups mentioned above form a rag-tag of Trotskyites, former CPGB types, and the like. To suggest that they will approach the issues impartially and level-headedly is somewhat naive; They have a mono-obsession with the evil of the west, and they are entirely willing to be intellectually convienient in pursuit of that.

    So pointing out that George Galloway attracts morally ambiguous people from the British left - and that he himself is to be included in such a group - means that I support the Bush administration? This is a bizzare line of reasoning, to say the least. Note, I did not say that all of the people who supported Galloway or even believed he was still likely to be innocent were in the description I gave; I would suggest from this that you are reading something into my words which does not exist.

    I would advise you not to jump to such unfounded and foolish assumptions in future, as it does not generally benefit the idea of you as being someone who is aproaching the facts impartially.

    [ October 26, 2005, 16:04: Message edited by: Dranalis DeAealth ]
     
  10. Taluntain

    Taluntain Resident Alpha and Omega Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Resourceful Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) BoM XenForo Migration Contributor [2015] (for helping support the migration to new forum software!)

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2000
    Messages:
    23,187
    Media:
    494
    Likes Received:
    510
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
    I wonder where you got that from, since I never wrote such a thing. Also reading something into my words which does not exist? I actually based my impression of you as a Bush supporter from your bashing of the leftists and false accusations of anti-Americanism combined with insults. Which most people here will confirm for you, are trademark attacks of the die-hard Bush supporters.

    If you don't support Bush (you have yet to indicate as much), then you are certainly included in the minority of people who use rightist trademark attacks but don't support Bush. Actually, I think it'd be a first for me to see such a person posting here. So you'd be quite special, you see.

    So what I would advise you is to not use such unfounded and foolish attacks in the future as it does not generally benefit the idea of you as being someone who is not a die-hard supporter of the Bush administration. You see, my only point was to show you that it is very easy to spin this in two totally opposite directions.

    The quite open insult that "all reasonable people have long since parted company both with them and with George." also does you no credit. So anyone who supports Galloway is unreasonable? Good one. Let's all start calling those who still support Bush unreasonable also. And some other names, while we're at it. We know we're right, and they're wrong.

    Too bad it doesn't work that way.

    You see, this forum has some specific rules, which I have a feeling you either haven't read, or understood. So I suggest you go read them (again); they're stickied on top of the thread listing. Because if you expect anyone to take your points seriously, you'll have to make them without insults or sweeping generalizations and false accusations.

    Otherwise everyone coming into your debate will also resort to using them to match your own, and all you'll get is a flamewar. Which is a popular form of entertainment on some message boards, but we do our best that this forum would be a place for civilized debates, not name-calling flamewars.
     
  11. Dranalis DeAealth

    Dranalis DeAealth Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    This is precisely what you said, and which you continue to imply in your above post. My original statement was aimed at rather specifically a British audience, or at least, an audience who was familiar with British politics. Most people - even some people who would be willing to give George Galloway some slack - would probably conceed the point which I made above. It is not essentially a terribly controversial point.

    You, however, jumped from that to strongly suggesting - albeit, admitedly, not stating directly - that I was a Bush administration supporter, and that, for some reason, my entire argument was invalid because of a single paragraph which you had an objection to. If this wasn't what you were suggesting, then what precisely was the context of your first post in this thread?

    It would be reasonable to conclude from this that you are operating with a bias and a certain streak of irrationality in your approach to this subject - not I.

    The statement that reasonable people will have parted company with George Galloway is not itself unreasonable. Note, I say parted company. I did not say those who defend him on some points on here or those who think he may be innocent of the charges levelled against him by Senator Coleman. I was refering to Galloway's political cohorts.

    Perhaps I should inform you of precisely what Galloway said to Saddam, personally, at the aforementioned meeting in Baghdad?

    George rather convieniently, of course, says now that he meant something entirely different from what he actually said. In fact, he wishes us to believe that the entire speech he gave, which this statement was part of, (Which includes the exhortation "until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem") was intended to be something which it patently is not. But that is beside the point. It may also be useful to point out that Galloway had a strong friendship with Tariq Aziz, which went so far as to include spending Christmas with him in 1999.

    Now, if you want to make a case that reasonable people will still consort politically with individuals who say these kind of things to a mass murderer, and have had these kinds of connections then please, go ahead. I am, like Mr Galloway, eager to debate. But I would suggest that saying that reasonable people have long since parted company with George Galloway is no more an insult than it would be to say that reasonable people have long since parted company with Louis Farrakhan or Lyndon LaRouche; indeed, it is simply a statement of fact.

    If you wanted proof of my views on Iraq, then you could have gone no further than the thread on the Iraqi consititution. But you chose not to do so, and instead launched into an astonishing, unfounded, and innacurate criticsm of my 'views', which you in fact knew nothing about. This is bad debating.

    I believe that I have behaved well, and in an orderly fashion in this thread. I have no intentions of starting a flame war; I shall leave those kinds of base tactics to others. I believe I have presented my argument rationally, and if anyone wishes to dispute what I said, then they are perfectly free to do so.

    [ October 26, 2005, 14:19: Message edited by: Dranalis DeAealth ]
     
  12. SatansBedFellow Gems: 7/31
    Latest gem: Tchazar


    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dranalis is not questioning Galloway's opposition to the war (a position he himself shares) but rather his blatent hypocracy. Galloway was once a genuine critic of Saddam's. In the mid-1980s Hansard records him delivering a ferocious assault on the Ba'ath regime, and those in the West who traded with and encouraged it. By 1994, however, he was in Baghdad famously saluting Saddam's courage and indefatigability.

    Dranalis is infact refering to those on the British radical-left who are guilty of the 'sin of the committed', the belief that my enemy's enemy is my friend. Or, in the context of the modern world, any anti-American will do. When Iraq stopped being a friend of the West it became a friend of George's. To attack George Galloway is not to attack the Left or the anti-war movement. Indeed, many of his most vocal opponents have been drawn from the aforementioned camps. The Guardian's Andrew Roth once described Galloway as one who suffers from -
    It would seem that Tal mistook Dranalis' comments for the, wholly unfounded, “liberal media-bias” warcry that is so popular with the American right and conservative publications in Britain like the Daily Telegraph. Even if it is true that Galloway took money from Saddam Hussein, what sane man could possibly accept Telegraph editor Charles Moore's editorial conclusions that he is thereby guilty of treason and that his actions have discredited the entire anti-war movement?

    Though I am not acquainted with 'Gorgeous George', I feel I am on reasonably safe ground when I say that he is not a man best known for his saintly integrity. But the reason one is reluctant to accept at their face value the latest charges against him is that they have been made by a man (Senator Coleman) who is obviously pursuing a personal vendetta against Galloway; something evident by the relish with which he read the charges on Tuesday's edition of Newsnight. Whatever my doubts and misgivings, I cannot conceal my delight in the way George had previously flown to Washington and berated a group of smug-looking senators sitting in judgment on him.

    Especially as the charges are leveled by a justice system in which 'terrorist suspects' can be picked up in secret and interrogated without restraint. Their defence counsels appointed by the Pentagon; who can refuse to keep confidential instructions confidential. Their prosecutors, also appointed by the Pentagon, can keep evidence from them even if it proves their innocence. Their judges at the military tribunals, who once again are Pentagon appointees, can change the rules of the court at any time, order that their trials be held in secret and refuse to compel the attendance of witnesses who might clear their names. At the end of the hearing, they can be executed if found guilty. I think Senator Coleman should remember this before turning on his tap of pious hypocrisy.

    [ October 26, 2005, 17:15: Message edited by: SatansBedFellow ]
     
  13. St. James Gems: 4/31
    Latest gem: Sunstone


    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, I was coming back this way to update my previous Galloway thread when I found this one. Good to see.

    If the Senate really does have the banking records that it claims, then why is it only referring Galloway for making false statements? Should there not also be charges for the actual fact of profiting from Oil for Food? I suppose it could be a jurisdictional issue, but I'm skeptical.
     
  14. Taluntain

    Taluntain Resident Alpha and Omega Staff Member ★ SPS Account Holder Resourceful Adored Veteran Pillars of Eternity SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!) BoM XenForo Migration Contributor [2015] (for helping support the migration to new forum software!)

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2000
    Messages:
    23,187
    Media:
    494
    Likes Received:
    510
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG] Dranalis DeAealth, I see a large chunk of text from you containing a continuation of your rhetoric, but not taking into account a single important point of my post, or actually addressing it in any shape or form. Nor admitting any of your rule violations.

    Since this doesn't seem to be clear to you, please let me spell it out. The fact that you feel that you haven't broken any of our rules is irrelevant. The number of people we get here who are completely convinced that they are always in the right and that they never break any of our rules is significant. So the only thing that you need to be concerned with is that you have been told you that you have broken them, and how. The proper response is acknowledging it and trying to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Denial is only a sign of supreme arrogance and disrespect to the rules in effect in this forum.

    So if you want to have a futile argument about whether you've broken any rules, feel free to PM me. But leave it out of public threads; it's a waste of space.

    As for bringing up again the old who said what to whom, please refer to the previous Galloway thread where I've addressed specifically this issue.

    Let me emphasize this again - you have some good points in your posts. But you've discredited them with your presentation yet again. But I'm repeating myself, so let this be enough.

    Pretty much all of the valid points brought up again in this thread have already been dealt with in the previous one not so long ago, so anyone interested can go read them there along with my own replies.

    [ October 27, 2005, 01:10: Message edited by: Taluntain ]
     
  15. Dranalis DeAealth

    Dranalis DeAealth Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    [snip]

    [I don't like to entertain people who think that arrogance combined with sheer persistence is somehow going to excuse them from complying with our rules. I've spelled it all out in my last post. If you choose to continue the argument in public, against our rules, your posts will be deleted. And if you keep it up, you'll be banned. It's pretty simple. So please stop wasting my time. Since you obviously still haven't read any of our rules, I suggest you do so before your next post if you intend to stay around here. -Tal]

    [ October 27, 2005, 14:56: Message edited by: Taluntain ]
     
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.