August 04, 2005
British MP George Galloway praises Iraq 'martyrs'
From BBC article:
"It can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs and they are defending all the people of the world against American hegemony."
He told Syrian Television: "Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad.
"The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will.
"The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters."
Even as someone who is generally sympathetic to Arab causes and who thought going into Iraq was a bad idea, I really have to wonder sometimes which planet this man has come from, and how he convinced his constituency to elect him to Parliament.
If the insurgency in Iraq is being run by groups as disparate as Al Qaeda and former Baathists, what would happen if America were to withdraw? Would the insurgents start fighting among themselves? Do they agree on anything besides from their short-term goal of ridding Iraq of American troops? Is Bush right when he says they have no productive goals, and only want to intimidate people?
Posted by dubaiwalla at August 4, 2005 02:14 PM
Filed Under: Iraq War
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Oh I love this guy. He's such excellent, excellent value.
Someone will take him out before long, and the newspapers will be all the poorer for it.
Posted by: secretdubai at August 4, 2005 05:37 PM
Well, how he gets enough votes to win escapes me, but he does have vast entertainment value.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at August 5, 2005 12:31 PM
Both Baathists and Al Qaeda are ultimately after power. Assuming Shiite pressure didn't keep pressing against these two, they'd clash. However, with Shiites now the dominant political force in Iraq, that doesn't seem likely in the near future, even if the US were to pull out completely.
Posted by: zurn at August 5, 2005 01:23 PM
If America were to pull out of Iraq, how good would the odds of a three way partition of the country? That would presumably be the doomsday scenario for Saudi Arabia and Turkey in particular.
Posted by: Dubaiwalla at August 5, 2005 01:26 PM
There'd probably be a pretty high risk of civil war if they pulled out. 'Partition' assumes they'd agree on boundaries; I think that's unlikely. The Sunni Arabs, who have lost so much, are going to want some of that oil wealth back.
Turkey's always wanted to avoid a Kurdistan, since they think it would embolden Turkish Kurds into seperatist action (I wonder how likely that is). What are you thinking the danger to Saudi Arabia would be, from Iraqi Shiites/emboldened Saudi Shiites, or an Al Aqaeda with a lawless land to reside in? Or both?
Posted by: zurn at August 5, 2005 01:42 PM
Mainly from an Iranian-influenced Shia-dominated religious state bordering Saudi Arabia's oil-producing Eastern Province, itself containing a Shia majority with grievances.
Al Qaeda already seems to hit Saudi Arabia pretty regularly.
Posted by: Dubaiwalla at August 5, 2005 01:47 PM
Galloway is typical of the unreconstructed left: can only see the world in the simplest terms, in a kind of colonial way.
Briefly: the West/North has all the power, all the money, all its leaders do is exploit and kill everyone else. All geopolitics explanations are based upon this assumption.
Problem is, things happen that the West has only been a component of - was the rise of the Islam as a political movement solely because of the West? Partly, I would argue, not solely.
I suspect people like Galloway (and there are more of them than you might think) are attracted and defend such ideas because of a discourse within their countries, they wish for political change at home and this severely distorts their analysis.
Ah, I see what I've done there: I have taken Galloway seriously ... whattamistakatomaka
Posted by: pman at August 5, 2005 03:22 PM
Other than the rather clumsy and flowery rhetoric, I have little problem with what Galloway has to say.
Just because his message might not be palatable, it does not make it any less resonant. In the eyes of much of the world, Blair has blood on his hands and no amount of wishy washy, liberal "generally sympathetic to Arab causes" posturing will repair the damage the war and occupation has done to inter-faith and inter-racial relations for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: Tribu at August 9, 2005 07:06 AM
1) His 'clumsy and flowery rhetoric' is the sort of language you'd expect from someone inspiring suicide bombers. And yes, phrasing does make a large difference. Besides, as an MP he ought to have the judgment to speak responsibly.
2) Al Qaeda is saving me from the Americans? I'm not sure I want to be saved.
Posted by: Dubaiwalla at August 9, 2005 02:23 PM
What the bloody fuck does inter-racial have to do with this sort of idiotic hard left idiocy?
His message isn't palatable, it's idiotic and empty posturing. As for the "eyes of the world" I am not sure I even know what the bloody fuck that means, but regardless, that has fuck all to do with a British MP aping the grotesque language used by suicide bombers and the like.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at August 10, 2005 12:44 PM
i have muslim friends who have actually worked on galloway's campaign in east london. they did that to make a "if you (blair = labour = "the rulers of the west") are attacking us (ANY country that they see as "muslim" = representative of the umma) then we (now not as "MENA muslims" but as "muslim british citizens") will support one of your nemeses who UNDERSTANDS US & IS SYMPATHETIC TO OUR SUFFERING (which in east london = george galloway)" statement.
it's extremely simplistic. welcome to the wonderful world of ... reality. fun, innit?
Posted by: raf* at August 16, 2005 05:19 PM