Galloway: Murder of Blair Would Be "Morally Justified"

[Vladimir]

It seems like a lot of people here aren't quite getting it. If war is immoral than targeting the leader of a country you're at war with is equally immoral. Those that say it would be morally justified for an aggrieved Iraqi to kill the PM are also saying that the war is morally justified.

Edit: Damn, page two!

[econ21]

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?

Idaho, I think you have to pick sides. Is the cause just? If it is, it may be morally justified to kill for it. If I were a soldier, I would not fight for a war I did not believe in. That is becau I do not think it would be morally just to kill for an unjust war.

Frankly, I don't even see the cause these insurgents are fighting for. It's like the final scene in Apocalypse Now: "You disapprove of my methods?" "I don't see any method". Here, I don't see any cause.

It is not to repel an invasion anymore. That's history; it's over. The US and the Brits are leaving - they've already retreated to their green zones and armoured vehicles.

Is it to overthrow a government backed by the majority Shias and their well-armed neighbour, Iran? Probably, who knows? But if it is, on a practical level, good luck to them - they're going to need it. But on a moral level, the outcome of their insurgency will only be prolonged bloodletting and a failed state (or three). And that is not a morally justified cause.

[Tribesman]

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

That would be...you?
and who thought DeNile was just a river in Africa

Firstly , can murder be justified?
Just call it regime change eh , wanted dead or alive .
If Blair , through his lies and actions is in any way responsible for the deaths of thousands then he deserves the same treatment as is advanced for Saddam or Bin-Laden .
Now for if it would be "morally justified" , that woud depend on your views on vengeance or the death penalty .
I notice that many of the posters objecting to the morality of killing Blair are very strong in the pro camp when it comes to vengeance or the death penalty .
Thats called hypocracy isn't it ?

[Mount Suribachi]

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

Galloway is a cheap demagogue. His debating "style" is the same as Muhammed Ali - he simply shouts the opponent down with the number and volume of his words and throws in a few controversial statements to further throw his opponent off balance. Such as "you armed Saddam in the first place", which is complete rubbish, but it sounds great and gets the anti-war crowd all excited. I remember him getting a round of applause on the Wright Stuff for throwing that one out. Sadly no-one asked him to name just one weapons system the Americans supplied to Saddam Hussein, because he wouldn't be able to.

I loathed Galloway for his hateful and hypocritical views long before his appearance before the US Senate, and he showed the British public what a nasty piece of work he is on Celebrity Big Brother. I just feel sorry for all the muslims who voted for him thinking he somehow represented them. They have been used.

[Tribesman]

Sadly no-one asked him to name just one weapons system the Americans supplied to Saddam Hussein, because he wouldn't be able to.

Why ? isn't Galloway up to date with the weapons that America supplied Saddam with .
Or is it just that you are not up to date Suribachi ?
Ask the Marsh Arabs , hey Saddameven got a waiver on the cease fire conditions so he could use the American weapons to put down the rebellion .
Galloway is a cheap demagogue. His debating "style" is the same as Muhammed Ali
At least you are right there . Like he says , he approaches every confrontation just as though he was still a boxer , keep them reeling from the blows and don't allow them a chance to recover their guard .

[Marcellus]

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?

Let's just remind ourselves of the question:

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?

Not in order to repel an invasion. For revenge. I don't believe that killing for revenge can be justified, so I completely disagree with Galloway here. That's just my opinion, of course.

[Mount Suribachi]

Sadly no-one asked him to name just one weapons system the Americans supplied to Saddam Hussein, because he wouldn't be able to.

Why ? isn't Galloway up to date with the weapons that America supplied Saddam with .
Or is it just that you are not up to date Suribachi ?
Ask the Marsh Arabs , hey Saddameven got a waiver on the cease fire conditions so he could use the American weapons to put down the rebellion .

I see you fail to mention these weapons America supposedly supplied Saddam with. Regarding the incident you refer to,I think you will find almost all the pro-war people on this board regard the failure of the Bush administration to support the rebellion in the south as a huge mistake. He encouraged them to revolt after the '91 war, then left them to be massacred. There was also an oversight in the ceasefire agreement that allowed the Iraqis to use their helicopter gunships.

Still waiting to find out what weapons systems America supplied Saddam with. 90% of Iraqs hardware came from Russia, 10% from France. The most America ever supplied Saddam with was just enough intelligence from their satellites to prolong the Iran-Iraq war, thus keeping Iran in check.

[Tribesman]

I see you fail to mention these weapons America supposedly supplied Saddam with.
supposedly ?????? get real
There was also an oversight in the ceasefire agreement that allowed the Iraqis to use their helicopter gunships.

Now which helicopter gunships would they be ? They wouldn't be the helicopter gunships that congress blocked the sale of , but then allowed the sale as long as they didn't get delivered with the TOW missiles included.
Now there wouldn't be a little problem with supplying cluster bombs to Saddam would there ? but then again the house did debate at length in '91how Saddam had American made Cluster bombs after the sale had been blocked , it appears that the Chilean front company wasn't much of a front in the end .
I suppose you are familiar with the 18 US companies named in the UNSCOM investigation for supplying Saddam with his Chemical Warfare requirement .
You may also be familiar with the investigations into the Loans and crdits Reagan and Bush gave saddam being used for weapons purchases , through an American arms dealer , (that lead to another Senate hearing)

But it seems that unfortunately you are not familiar at all with Saddams arms purchases are you .
So Suribachi , before you make silly statements about "supposed" arms supplied , it might be a good idea to learn a little something about them .

[Mount Suribachi]

Now which helicopter gunships would they be ?

You tell me? Cobras? Don't think so. Apaches? Get real. Name the helicopters - I'm not aware of any US helicopter gunships other than those two.

I suppose you are familiar with the 18 US companies named in the UNSCOM investigation for supplying Saddam with his Chemical Warfare requirement .

I work in the Pharmaceutical industry. My employers were inspected this year by UN Chemical Weapons inspectors - we get a visit every 5-10 years as we have the capacity to manufacter chemical weapons should we so wish. Do you have any idea of the kind of stuff on the "banned" list regarding chemical weapons? Its bog standard stuff like reactors (oooh!), crystallisers (ahhh!) and filter-dryers (eeeek!). Chemicals like Acetone & Toluene. I throw acetone round the lab like its water, we go through at least 20 tons of Toluene a day. Hell, we even use Phosgene, itself a chemical weapon, as part of a standard reaction. You can build yourself Chemical weapons using freely available, off-the-shelf equipment and raw materials. France & Germany were far bigger players in supplying Saddam with what he needed for his NBC program.

You may also be familiar with the investigations into the Loans and crdits Reagan and Bush gave saddam being used for weapons purchases , through an American arms dealer , (that lead to another Senate hearing)

So no American weapons then? And how did they compare to the enormous loans and credits Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gave Iraq to protect them from Iran?

Now there wouldn't be a little problem with supplying cluster bombs to Saddam would there ? but then again the house did debate at length in '91how Saddam had American made Cluster bombs after the sale had been blocked , it appears that the Chilean front company wasn't much of a front in the end .

I will admit to not being familiar with this one, but given your being sincerely wrong views on things like the helicopter Gunships, you'll forgive me if I require a little more convicing. Furthermore, there would be a compatability issue with the Iraqi AF's 700 odd Soviet tactical fighters.

But it seems that unfortunately you are not familiar at all with Saddams arms purchases are you .
So Suribachi , before you make silly statements about "supposed" arms supplied , it might be a good idea to learn a little something about them .

Oh, I am very familiar with it. All you have come up with is some Cluster Bombs that may or may not have been supplied by America. And this is from the VAST, enormous, military machine - the worlds 6th largest AF in 1991 - that Saddam assembled. The only weapons America may have supplied were some cluster bombs.

But I'll help you out - Iraqi Airways (government owned) had two Boeing 707s, six B727s, two B737s and four B747s!

So America hardly "armed" Saddam. Look, just bite the bullet and admit that France and Russia armed him.

[Tribesman]

You tell me? Cobras? Don't think so. Apaches? Get real. Name the helicopters - I'm not aware of any US helicopter gunships other than those two.

Check the inventory of armed US helicopters , you will find there are a lot more than 2 types , those supplied to Saddam were the Hughes model , of similar performance and capabilities to the German MBB and Anglo-French Gazelle .
Do you have any idea of the kind of stuff on the "banned" list regarding chemical weapons?
What you mean like fishing rods , pencil-erasers , ping-pong balls , badminton raquets , no , I have no idea what is on the list

France & Germany were far bigger players in supplying Saddam with what he needed for his NBC program.

Errr not quite , while Germany has 84 companies on the list , France has less than either Britain or America .

I will admit to not being familiar with this one, but given your being sincerely wrong views on things like the helicopter Gunships, you'll forgive me if I require a little more convicing.
Like I said , it is not very clever to write "alledgedly" or "supposedly" if you don't know facts about what you are challenging .....Furthermore, there would be a compatability issue with the Iraqi AF's 700 odd Soviet tactical fighters.

Oh, I am very familiar with it.
Well Suribachi , it appears that you are not familiar with the issue are you ?

So America hardly "armed" Saddam.
oh hardly armed him , thats a bit different from never supplied him with any weapons which was your initial claim .

[Red Peasant]

Galloway is a strange bloke, but I can agree with his basic premiss on this one. I would consider it eminently possible for a muslim to convince himself that it is morally justifiable to kill Tony Blair given the circumstances of the Iraq war and current religious and geo-political tensions.

This is not the same as saying that it is morally right.

However, maybe Georgie should sometimes be more discreet when he opens his gob, because he knows that the media will completely misrepresent what he is saying on such subjects. It's also a daft thing to say, because it might inadvertently encourage such an action.

[Tribesman]

Look, just bite the bullet
Hows the bullet tasting now Suri , have you a good dental plan ??

Since now you must have discovered the Hughes/Boeing arms supplies ( its quite easy without bothering with all the hearings in your government ,its in the air force inventory), would you like to explore the Bell ones ?
Now that is a little harder , as they were only supplied for agricultralchemical disbursement , so as you understand dual use capabilities ,how does a hardpoint for an agricltural spraying mechanism become a hardpoint for a rocket pod ?
Oh I forgot , only the Cobra and Apache are helicopter gunships

But on the bright side , due to the lightness of construction the cannons on the gunships have to be limited to 350 rounds/minute