Galloway 's election bid slammed

by Barry Wed Dec 15, 2004 14:15

Yes Pat Im aware of the PFLP and Al Aqsa martyrs etc. I support them to the hilt and would actually prefer to see the resistance become secular in nature.

However the reality is that the only group thus far capable of knocking the shite out of the zionists is Hezbullah. They are the only group they truly fear. Hezbullah, although strongly Islamic have shown that they are entirely tolerant of other religious beliefs, in keeping with the true Islamic tradition. Since liberating Southern Lebanon their record in this has been commendable. Perhaps their example is the way forward for the other groupings ?

by pat c Wed Dec 15, 2004 14:05

while i would have sympathy for hezbollah & hammas actions against military targets, in the final analysis these groups are bound to the idea of a fundamentalist islamic state.

there are groups, while islamic, are of a secular nature, such as the fatah hawks and the al aqsa martyrs. then there are also the pflp & pdflp who are totally secular.

by Barry Wed Dec 15, 2004 13:57

My own religious beliefs are strictly private and I wouldnt force them on anyone.

Unfortunately we're in a situation today were the bulk of resistance to imperialism in the middle east actually comes from hard line Islamic groups (although secular elements play a part as well)

While theres many things I dont agree with, my support for both Hamas and Hezbullah will always remain. As far as I can see they are the only doors of hope open to those people. No-one else is fighting for them. I remain deeply angered and sickened by the murder of Sheikh Yasein Rantisi. A war crime.

I agree with you as well that Galloway, like virtually every other politician is an opportunist. However what I know for certain is that his election will be an absolute sickener for Blair and the pro-war camp.
I accept though your deeply held opposition to the beliefs of those he has aligned himself to. You are merely being consistent in your principles, rare today.

As for the SWP, my knowledge of them is scanty to say the least. I had a relative who joined once and later left. From then on they virtually treated him like a pariah if they met him. That only convinced him he was better off away from them.

by pat c Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:53

barry, dont get me wrong on this. it is in sorrow and anger that i launch this broadside against the swp.

the swp used to be great fighters for secular rights and against religious obscurantism. they also comphrehended when it was important to defend the right to religious freedom. when loyalists picketed the catholic church at harryville and attacked parishioners, the swp organised demos in support of the harryville catholics. this didnt mean that they in any way lessened their criticism of the catholic church.

but now for the swp, secularism has gone out the window. they are defending the wearing of the "hijab" as a civil right. ( funny that no one thinks muslim men should have to wear veils.) while i oppose a state ban on the hijab, it is insane for socialists to see the wearing of the hijab as some type of freedom. how many of the muslim women on these demos would defend the right of their sisters in Islamic States NOT TO WEAR THE HIJAB? Who among these "progressive" hijab wearers have ever opposed islamic anti women and anti gay laws?

would the swp join in demos by ctholic fundamentalists demanding that women wear the veil? if catholic priests were making anti gay rants would the swp happily share platforms with them?

All fundamentalism must be opposed be it Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Islamic.

by pat c Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:49

i'm not pointing at "the muslims" in general. but i have the right to criticise islamic intolerance towards womens and gay rights just as i have always foughtagainst the reactionary catholic church. i'm pointing at opportunist politicians who will do anything to get votes, even if this means sharing platforms with fundamentalist imams. its relevant to ireland because the swp here are also in league with reactionary muslims. dont forget the swps pro hijab demos.

paisley is certainly a fundamentalist christian and while i will never forget his hilarious saveulsterfromsodomy campaign, i dont remember him ever calling for gays or "adulterous" women to be executed. galloway and the swp are happy to make common cause with nutcases who dont even believe that women should be allowed to vote.

we fought long enough against the catholic mullahs, if the catholic church wanted women to wear a hijab would the swp be supporting it?

All Religion is Bunk!

No Gods!

No Masters!

by Barry Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:35

I dont live in England so Ill not be voting for either. Even if I did live in England Id never vote for Labour.

I pointed out above I couldnt care less what happened in Westminster (that is unless someone flies a big jumbo-jet into it, which would be frightful, obviously)

Ive nothing against the gays either but I dont stand with them. Fair play to them and all but not really a cause dear to my heart.

I agree with you though about religious maniacs coming to power. Unfortunately our own great wee peace deal means we in the north will now have the distinction of being the only region in the so called civilised western hemisphere, with a religious fundamentalist preacher for our Prime Minister. Rev Ians views on gays etc wouldnt be too far removed from Osamas I imagine.
Maybe we should sort out our own problems here before we point at the muslims.

(not being confrontational here Pat, I usually agree with you)

by pat c Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:17

but galloway has chosen to align himself with those who wish to see a medieval "justice" system introduced.

which side are you on?

1. the side of women and gays and socialists and secularism and opposition to the war.

2. the side of the mullahs who want to see "adulterous" women stoned to death and gays burned alive.

if you support option 1 then dont vote for galloway or labour.

by Barry Tue Dec 14, 2004 13:51

If more people in that area want him to repesent their views than yer woman then thats tough. If the Brits went to such lengths to falsely discredit him and that Tramp Tony Blair had to get rid of him he cant be all bad.

by hmmm Tue Dec 14, 2004 13:18

One could argue that Galloway shopuld stand aside as any proper socialist would to try and keep minorities in parliament. Then I suppose that he wouldnt know much about socialism would he?

by Oscar Wilde Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:45

Galloway is the one who lacks credibility. He shares platforms with misogynistic homophobic mullahs. It should be no surprise that hes targetting the seat of a female MP. Galloways Mullah mates dont believe that women should have the vote, let alone be able to become MPs.

by joseph Mon Dec 13, 2004 19:19

Why give this opportunistic Stalinist the time of day? Is he really one? Lets ask him:

"I wouldn't define it that way because of the pejoratives loaded around it; that would be
making a rod for our own back. If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. The disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life".

Mind you, if he lived in Cold War Eastern Europe, he wouldn't have his Algarve holiday home, or his sports car and cigars.

by Dorian Gray Mon Dec 13, 2004 18:52

Ken has no credibility left by staying in a party with no credibility.

Lest we forget, the Labour War Party played an active, military role in spearheading the illegal, immoral and unethical attack on Iraq.

Ken should never have re-joined .I used to admire this man but his sniping at Galloway is petty in the extreme.

by Greg Mon Dec 13, 2004 18:18

Get a life, Ken. Galloway is obviously standing in Tower Hamlets because he thinks he has a good chance of winning, not because he hates black women. Pur-leeze...

by joseph Mon Dec 13, 2004 15:48

What's the champagne Stalinist up to now?