Hat tip to Vlad Tepes
George Galloway
"Mr Dignity"
Hacked e-mails reveal that George Galloway, former British MP, Viva Palestina organizer, friend of Hamas and Hezbollah, guest speaker of the UC Irvine Muslim Student Union, and general, all-around scallywag, referred to Syria as the "last castle of Arab dignity" as he asked that nation for permission to use one of their ports for a Viva Palestina mission. Vlad Tepes and The Telegraph have the story.
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=43973
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9067118/Anonymous-hackers-leak-Syrias-Bashar-al-Assads-astonishing-office-emails-discussing-Barbara-Walters.html
Syria, according to George Galloway
Can there be any more proof of what a sick, demented, joker George Galloway is? I wonder what UC Irvine's Muslim Student Union is thinking now having made Galloway their honored speaker a couple of years back. That was when he called yours truly a "liar" when I told him of the several anti-Semitic taunts and chants being used by pro-Palestinian protesters in the US during the Gaza fighting.
There are only two explanations for George Galloway; either he is evil or he is crazy. Or maybe both. Take your pick.
7 comments:
You're missing the best implications Gary. When the Assad regime falls, Viva Palestina will be as persona non grata as Qadaffi's mercenaries were after the revolution in Libya. Played right, it could even result in a peace treaty with Israel, on the grounds that Hamas and the likes of Galloway were aligned with the regime!
(Politics is the art of putting your spin on events before someone else does).
Interesting that Galloway (or the MSU ) have no concern or sympathy for the 5,000 Syrians killed by the Syrian regime so far. Hezbollah has announced it wii not let the Assad regime fall. Syria has been a safe haven for them and an important surrogate for Iran.
So, do the rest of the Muslims side with the Syrian people or with Assad, Galloway, Iran, and Hezbollah?
Obviously, this administration will do nothing besides talk and / or completely mismanage the situation.
When you dramatically reduce our military capability as the administration proposes you project an impotent country, unable to influence events.
.
.
What do you want "this administration" to do Miggie? Send in the United States army? That might be morally justified, but I doubt that voters or taxpayers would support it. And if they won't, what exactly would you suggest?
I guess I am just dense, but I don't get the difference between taking military action in Libya, which we did (at least marginally with NATO, as I recall), and in Syria, which we have not yet and most likely will not. Help me, someone out there. Siarlys??
Elwood,
First, Syria is much stronger than Libya. Second, Syria has allies like Iran, Hamasand Hezbollah. As for Libya, the only reason I could see getting involved was to kill Qaddafi in retaliation for PA 103.
I admire what the Syrian people are doing, ansd it would be nice for someone to take out this regime. Yet, I cannot see sending our forces in to do the dirty work again like we did in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The ME is what it is and I can't see sending our troops there anymore unless it is in our own defense. Iran would be in our own defense.
Gary, there is an article - book review - in today's NY Times(!) titled "Why the World Needs America" by Robert Kagan. I recommend it to you. He argues, persuasively to me, it is in the world's interest to have a dominate superpower maintain order in the world, certainly to the extent possible.
We could have counter battery strikes by air in Syria as we did in Lybia. We don't have to worry really about the military capacity of the Syrians or fear that China, Russia, or Iran would go to war with us on behalf of Syria or really, Assad.
We have to have and present our military strength. That concern about what America would do should be any tyrant's greatest consideration. At least it should be. If we cut our military capabilities then we become as irrelevant as, say, France. All they can do is talk and sneer, etc. but otherwise they are powerlesss.
You have to read the whole article to appreciate his arguments as evidence. Sorry I can't supply a link.
.
Gary has it about right Elwood. We helped in Libya because we could do so, at relatively little cost to us. Syria is less accessible, bigger, and it would take more firepower, much more risk to the lives of troops involved, a much longer and open-ended commitment. It probably could increase risks to Israel as well.
Post a Comment