Galloway: Murder of Blair Would Be "Morally Justified"

[Crazed Rabbit]

What a loon. I'm surprised he's managed to stay in office.

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

From:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...icle601356.ece

I don't recall the order from Blair to the British troops saying "kill thousands of innocent people". Ah well.

Here's a fun bit:

Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island's Communist dictator, Fidel Castro - whom he defended as a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys".

Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced.

I guess old tyrannical socialists who trample human liberty for the "common good" (or want to) have a thing for each other.

Crazed Rabbit

[King Ragnar]

Silly Fat Communist, who needed to go into the Big Brother house for attention.

[JAG]

I don't believe in murder even of those who have caused the murders of others - which is one of the reasons for my stance on the death penalty, etc - but you can see what Galloway is stating.

If an unemployed Sunni in Iraq who feels he has to blow himself up for his country, people and himself to have a future and he takes out Blair, it would probably be a fair result considering what Blair had done to him. Sort of a self defence attack. Not that I would really like to see it, I would prefere blair sort the problems in Iraq, but after the news conference last night, there seems to be no hope, now he is on about reforming the UN, bloody hell.

[Vladimir]

Ahh, nothing like good moral relitavism. Nothing is wrong with anything so do whatever you want. Is this story verified and credible? I think I liked him better when he was called "Boy George" and had a few hits in the '80's.

[Idaho]

I dislike Galloway. But on this point I agree. If leaders make wars then they should be prepared to get a little blowback.

[Vladimir]

Really? So you'd be OK with your PM being assonated? You've just lost so much credibility and respect in my eyes. That's the leader of your country, he represents you. If you want him to get fired that's one thing but you're ok with someone trying to kill him.

[Duke Malcolm]

Ah, poor Gorgeous George... this year has been devastating for him. First Big Brother, then the ditty about blowing up Blair, then Castro...
I find it hard to defend these actions of my compatriot...

You've just lost so much credibility and respect in my eyes. That's the leader of your country, he represents you. If you want him to get fired that's one thing but you're ok with someone trying to kill him.

You don't seem to understand the principles of the Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy. Blair represents the Labour Party and the constituency of Sedgefield. HM the Queen represents the country. Blair leads the Labour Party, HM the Queen leads the country.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Not morally justified, because the decision to go to war was hardly Blair's decision alone, but rather the decision of many people from his party together - maybe he was even against it personally. The crime that was committed was that Iraq was attacked without bothering making the justification proper. Given how Saddam was, there were some quite good possibilities of making the justification proper, but with all those ways of justifying the war there was also a chance that Saddam would meet the demands and a peaceful solution would be met - something Blair and Bush hardly considered acceptable.

A justification of war is only proper if you would have given reasonable demands, so that the other part is given a chance to cooperate and avoid war, and not try as hard as possible to make it impossible for the opponent unable to meet the demands to make sure war can't be avoided. For instance "give us bin Laden" isn't a reasonable demand (neither USA nor Britain have been capable of finding him even after occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, nor by spies), nor is "hand over your non-existing WMDs to us or we attack". The fact that Iraq was never given any chance to meet the demands needed for peace (because the demands were unreachable to any human being), indicates that there was a strong will from American and British leadership that the war should be carried out no matter what, and the connections of American and British officials with oil business is well known and confirmed.

So sure, Blair has taken official responsibility for a horrible crime, and as such could be subject to punishment for it by law (Hague tribunal), but I personally think, from a moral rather than legal standingpoint, that he should be allowed to leave politics in peace and without punishment. It's his leaving the politics that is what both Iraqis and British citizens demand, not his death. His death can never be a morally justified goal to anyone, but I believe some would consider it a morally justified means, if he doesn't leave politics by free will soon enough, whatever "soon enough" means in their eyes.

One thing that makes it highly unjust to prosecute or kill Blair, is the fact that the masses didn't take their responsibility to protest and advocate the overthrowing of Blair's government early enough - the real protests from 75% of the population didn't begin until after the attack. Blair must have thought he acted with support from his people even though he was not. This makes neither the people nor Blair guilty - rather whatever society structure made this misunderstanding happen is what is guilty for the crime. Punishing a society structures with jail or death penalty would be ridiculous , but finding a human scapegoat in place of punishing whatever society structure was really responsible is even more ridiculous.

What future PMs of Britain know now is that the British people hardly support wars like the Iraq war, so in any future case where war is started by the PM on such loose grounds you can talk about the PM being guilty. We can also learn that it's possible to by accident enter the road towards dictatorship and excessive violence, if we take small steps towards it at the time eventually many people have many people they hate, but in fact it's society structures they should really hate. Nobody has responsibility and guilt for this action, but at the same time, the action is such a horrible one that we must find a way to avoid it from repeating itself, if necessary by making sure our society structures in the future can point out someone as guilty if actions like these were to be carried out, and that it should be clear already before the action is taken, who would be held responsible and prosecuted for it.

[Vladimir]

You don't seem to understand the principles of the Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy. Blair represents the Labour Party and the constituency of Sedgefield. HM the Queen represents the country. Blair leads the Labour Party, HM the Queen leads the country.

With all due respect I don't believe you have a proper understanding of how foreigners and Britons alike view the Prime Minister. How many times to you hear: "Oi, the Queen's really buggering up the country." (sorry, aussie slang is more fun) or hear her referenced when referring to bad policy decisions. No, the Prime Minister very much represents your country just like our President represents ours. When people look at the budget deficit they blame the President, not the Congress that creates and votes on the budget. The British monarchy is an abstraction while Parliament runs the (U.S. Federal equivalent of the) UK.

[Mount Suribachi]

Ah, poor Gorgeous George... this year has been devastating for him. First Big Brother, then the ditty about blowing up Blair, then Castro...

Yep, so bad that he got his own show, Saturday and Sunday evenings on national radio, where he is free to spout his hatred. I'm sure when he's sat in his villa in Portugal counting his earnings from BB and his radio show + his MP's salary + all the money he gets from his speaking engagements (increased since his BB appearance) + all hundreds of thousands he's made by taking to court any newspaper that so much as looks at him funny (+ all the money he may or may not have made off his mate Saddam), I'm sure when he's sat there in his designer suits smoking his Cuban cigars spouting off about "the working man", I'm sure he's thinking about what a bad year its been. Oh, and Celebrity Fit Club wanted him too, but he wasn't fat enough, so that was some more £££ our "man of the people" just missed out on.

I despise Galloway, but, I think he actually has a point here. We were more than happy to try and off Saddam when he was in power, under that same logic, Blair as the man who gives the orders is a legitimate target. I would have more respect for the terrorists if they'd tried to blow up Blair rather than a bunch of innocent passengers on the underground.

Duke Malcolm technically you are correct that the Queen our Head of State and supreme commander of the Armed Forces, but the PM is the one that calls the shots.

[Duke Malcolm]

Yes, the PM calls the shots, but Vladimir said that the PM is the leader and representative of the nation and that if we let someone else kill him, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Tony Blair does not represent the whole country, just those people who voted for him in Sedgefield. While the PM does call the shots, he is not our leader, he is only leader of the majority party of the lower house of Parliament. The common man has no duty to serve him, honour him, or any such thing. He shall be gone in a few years.

[English assassin]

I don't know how to break this to you, your Grace, but I'm a common man, and if Brenda imagines I feel any duty to serve or honour her she is sadly deluded.

Though not as deluded as Charlie "I'm a very important person with important things to say" Windsor.

[solypsist]

sounds like someone is still smarting over the total pounding Galloway gave the Republican led U.S. Senate

[InsaneApache]

Brenda! roflmfao...

[Duke Malcolm]

I don't know how to break this to you, your Grace, but I'm a common man, and if Brenda imagines I feel any duty to serve or honour her she is sadly deluded.

I don't mean it like that, it's just that the Queen is supposed to be the representative of the country, Blair is supposed to represent his own interests.

[Vladimir]

sounds like someone is still smarting over the total pounding Galloway gave the Republican led U.S. Senate

That would be...you?

[Pannonian]

With all due respect I don't believe you have a proper understanding of how foreigners and Britons alike view the Prime Minister. How many times to you hear: "Oi, the Queen's really buggering up the country." (sorry, aussie slang is more fun) or hear her referenced when referring to bad policy decisions. No, the Prime Minister very much represents your country just like our President represents ours. When people look at the budget deficit they blame the President, not the Congress that creates and votes on the budget. The British monarchy is an abstraction while Parliament runs the (U.S. Federal equivalent of the) UK.

The Prime Minister just a Minister who happens to run the country (the term was originally used to refer to the monopolising of executive power by Robert Walpole). He deserves no more respect as an elected representative than any other elected representative, including Galloway. Don't expect the rest of us to feel aggrieved on his behalf because of some non-existent special status. If you've seen him on any of his masochism campaigns (so-called because he volunteers to face a usually abusive public), you'll know that he doesn't expect any special treatment as PM.

[Vladimir]

The Prime Minister just a Minister who happens to run the country (the term was originally used to refer to the monopolising of executive power by Robert Walpole). He deserves no more respect as an elected representative than any other elected representative, including Galloway. Don't expect the rest of us to feel aggrieved on his behalf because of some non-existent special status. If you've seen him on any of his masochism campaigns (so-called because he volunteers to face a usually abusive public), you'll know that he doesn't expect any special treatment as PM.

Yes and neither did Winston Churchill I'm sure. Who represented the UK at Yalta?

Hah! Check this out!

[Idaho]

Really? So you'd be OK with your PM being assonated? You've just lost so much credibility and respect in my eyes. That's the leader of your country, he represents you. If you want him to get fired that's one thing but you're ok with someone trying to kill him.

I'll just have to find a way to live without your adoration Vladimir.

If you go fighting wars then you should expect to face danger. The very fact that he is surrounded by security service people is an admission that such an attack is justified.

[econ21]

Ahh, nothing like good moral relitavism.

For once I agree with Vladimir. George Galloway (and JAG and several others here) seem to be casually slipping from "Person X thinks killing Blair is morally justified" to "Killing Blair is morally justified".

Sure we can all understand why some person X might be mad at Blair and think it is morally justified - where person X might be some Sunni militant who lost his job, his country to the Shiites, his sense of national pride when his land was invaded, maybe lost some of his friends/family, etc. Heck, I even believe Osama Bin Laden thinks what he did was "morally justified" (even though I think it was morally despicable).

But saying "Person X thinks killing Blair is morally justified" is light years from being able to say "Killing Blair is morally justified". To say the latter implies you, George Galloway, whoever, agree with person X.

Or if you think it does not mean that, you have no moral compass and so no place in politics or commenting on politics.

[solypsist]

Galloway said it would be morally justified to personally attack the leader of a nation that invaded your country. i see no difference between attacking the soldiers of an enemy country and atacking the leader who ordered them into battle.

of course the Gaurdian omits teh context of the question in the GQ article and only printed the reply in part.

I don't see anyone crying over the bombing of Osama's hideouts in a bid to kill him after he ordered the attack on the WTC. So what's the difference here?

[Marcellus]

If you go fighting wars then you should expect to face danger. The very fact that he is surrounded by security service people is an admission that such an attack is justified.

Hardly - it simply recognises that such an attack is a real danger. I dislike Blair as much as the next man, but murder is not justified. If you don't like him, then don't vote Labour.

[Pannonian]

Yes and neither did Winston Churchill I'm sure. Who represented the UK at Yalta?

In his capacity as PM, he acted as the representative of British interests. If he suggested that he should be accorded a special moral status as the leader of the country, he'd have been thrown out and consigned to an asylum. As an expert and historian of British parliamentary democracy, he would have understood this better than anyone.

Hah! Check this out!

So the PM is given extra protection while in that capacity. How does that equate to the moral outrage you expect from us, that even Blair himself does not expect? You say that Duke Malcolm does not understand how Britons see the PM as the leader of their country. Perhaps you should first explain your vision to Blair, since even he does not share it, since even he sees himself as but another elected representative who happens to lead the executive branch of government.

Blair's Iraq interview on Newsnight from February 2003, an example of how he is handled, and how he expects to be handled by the British public. The BBC site probably has other, more recent examples of his masochism campaigns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/2732979.stm

[Pannonian]

Hardly - it simply recognises that such an attack is a real danger. I dislike Blair as much as the next man, but murder is not justified. If you don't like him, then don't vote Labour.

The outrage should be over suggested violence to a British citizen and an elected MP. This "leader of the country" BS is irrelevant.

[Duke Malcolm]

Yes, quite right, Pannonian. It is the right of every Briton to know that the weight of his country is behind him should any injustice befall him overseas. Or at least it was...

[Marcellus]

The outrage should be over suggested violence to a British citizen and an elected MP. This "leader of the country" BS is irrelevant.

I completely agree.

[econ21]

Galloway said it would be morally justified to personally attack the leader of a nation that invaded your country.

Well I would like to see the transcript of the interview. You are wrong if the following reported exchange is true:

the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified."

That's pretty unequivocal. It doesn't matter what preceded the reporters question or what flannel followed Galloway's sentence. People - especially those who would lead - should say what they mean and mean what they say.

I suspect Gorgeous George just got carried away with the love of his own voice or by his hate of Tony Blair. He's not a person to take seriously, no matter how much he spanked your Senate.

[solypsist]

I note that he said it would be morally justified, not morally justifiable. I also note that no-one in this thread - including Galloway - is calling for it.

The nuanced difference here indicates that Galloway is saying it would be morally OK, not merely that it would be found to be morally OK by those actually doing it. Frankly, he could have stepped more lightly by saying that Blair was a legitimate target (which he clearly is, if we're in a war as they keep saying), but he actually went further by saying that he viewed it as morally acceptable for someone to kill Blair for his actions.

That's pretty unequivocal. It doesn't matter what preceded the reporters question or what flannel followed Galloway's sentence. People - especially those who would lead - should say what they mean and mean what they say.

[Idaho]

Hardly - it simply recognises that such an attack is a real danger. I dislike Blair as much as the next man, but murder is not justified. If you don't like him, then don't vote Labour.

So if we were invaded by the US, our nation bombed and our government deposed, there would be no justification to attack the leader of the army which had invaded us?

Sounds like insanity to me. You can send a bomber over Falluja and carpet bomb soldiers and civillians indiscriminantly - and that is an act of war. However a targetted strike against the very leader of an army you are at war with is murder?

[econ21]

If I can still read English, Soly, I think your last post puts you in complete agreement with mine.