British politician claims possible assassination of Blair 'justified'

[Memnoch]

LONDON - Maverick British politician George Galloway has claimed it would be "morally justified" for an assassin to target Prime Minister Tony Blair, but he said he was not advocating an attempt, according to a magazine interview published Friday. Galloway was quoted as saying an attack on Blair that caused no other casualties would be a justifiable response to Britain's support for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. For full article click here

Who is this nut???

[johnny]

Ah well, i'm sure it's going to be a freedom of speech discussion all over again.

[Felix The Assassin]

Just wondering if he's enjoying a good'ol smoke with Fidel while he's visting?

[True_Moose]

Nothing like a nice, outrageous comment to get an obscure politician in the news.

[Aragorn1]

TBH publicity is all he cares about, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/2969925.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4374534.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/..._feature.shtml

[shamrock_uk]

Meh, I still think it's an interesting question to ask (although I would be the first in line to build the scaffold for Galloway as I think he's an odious man).

Generally we would say that killing is wrong. Some of us might say that we would kill in self defence or to protect someone we love from being killed.

If one person kills another - they are sent down for murder, and possibly the death sentence is they kill two or three people.

If the leader of a weak country kills citizens in another country, they get sent down for war crimes.

If leaders of powerful nations kill citizens of other countries they...er..don't get anything.

Whatever your stance on the Iraq war, one indisputible fact remains - the actions of Bush/Blair have directly killed thousands of innocent people and indirectly killed many more. Were it not for the invasion, they would still be alive.

Furthermore, once it became obvious that civilians were being killed they did not cease their activities and indeed made it a policy to obscure data about the scale of innocent casualties.

Just how many people must a leader kill before killing them becomes justified?

If we lined the innocent people killed directly by American and British bombs up in a great row and someone walked along the line and shot them one by one, it would have to be a morally defunct person who would not take a weapon up and attack the executioner. The fact that the executioner is revealed to be none other than Bush or Blair should have no bearing on the previous decision to attack. Just because our leaders are not shooting them in the face doesn't make them any less responsible.

[ 05-27-2006, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: If we lined the innocent people killed directly by American and British bombs up in a great row and someone walked along the line and shot them one by one, it would have to be a morally defunct person who would not take a weapon up and attack the executioner. Just because our leaders are not shooting them in the face doesn't make them any less responsible.

Such wisdom for such a young and innocent person that you portray Shamrock. But the executioner is not guilty, and cannot be tried nor punished, for he has only followed the order of the Chief Executive. Which then will replace the removed executioner with a whole new crew, and so the cycle continues. So, don't shoot the shooter, shoot the Chief!

[shamrock_uk]

Ah, that was actually what I meant, I've edited to reflect that. I just didn't want people knowing who the executioner was because the attitude then changes to "oh, but we can't do that...!"

I think I agree completely with you Felix, one of the main factors that drove me to post the above was the increasing tendency by the politicians (certainly in the UK anyway) to make soldiers accountable in court for their actions and dragging the procedings out for considerable time.

It seems that the response of the upper echelons to misconduct is 'greater accountability for the lower ranks' to further their own political ends when they are unwilling to shoulder the responsibility that their own positions give them.

[Harkoliar]

When there is war, people die. Period.

When there is no war, people still die. In case of Iraq, its dictator torture and oppression.

Sectarian Rule vs Religous Rule in Iraq, which is better? US went to war because of Muslim Extremist, Saddam was a dictator who oppressed Muslims. W/o Saddam, there is growing Muslim Fundamentalism

So which is better.. War or no War?

If your a big man like President of the US, then your bound to step into someones toes everytime you breath. So no matter what he does, someone is bound to get trampled upon those big feet.

These are the things I have thought for the War. What Mario posted the article with the Brit Politician, regarding the morally justified assasination. Well it could be true in a "Muslim Extremist POV" of assasination, heck when I watched Munich movie with Israel assasinations of prominent figureheads, they have been doing it for years. I guess people just dont want to see whats going on right before thier eyes and dont want to admit its happening. George Galloway just said whats on everybodys mind.

The only way for TOTAL peace is total annahilation of the opposite country. Britain did that part, doing it during colonial times. Wiping out entire tribes and villages when only a few revolt. (or so my friend says, he is a brit and studying history and it has happened). Do it now, and its considered Genocide.

[ 05-28-2006, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Harkoliar ]

[Timber Loftis]

If killing is justified in making a war, it is certainly justified in ending or preventing one.

Unfortunately, the assassin makes all of society's determination for himself. In that sense, he is no better than the rogue leader who is misguiding a nation.

So, assassination is not so morally justified.\

However, if we were to decide as a group that we needed to take our guns, march on D.C., haul that little warmonger monkee and his cohorts and cronies out onto the capital lawn and execute the sorry lot.... now, that's morally justified.

Not that I'm advocating anything of the sort. But PM me if you're interested. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]