Killing Blair would be morally justified, says anti-war MP

​

Killing Blair would be morally justified, says anti-war MP
(AFP)
Source
27 May 2006 ​

LONDON — Killing British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a suicide bombing would be morally justified as revenge for the war in Iraq, firebrand lawmaker George Galloway has said. In a magazine interview that was widely reported yesterday, the MP for the anti-war party, Respect, was asked if it would be justifiable for a suicide bomber to blow up Blair provided there were no other casualties.Galloway told GQ magazine: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it — but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of July 7.”He was referring to the London attacks last year, when four extremists killed 52 people and themselves by bombing the transport network.''It would be entirely logical and explicable,” the leftist lawmaker said. “And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq — as Blair did.” Galloway said he would alert the authorities if he learnt of a plot to kill the prime minister. ​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

​

 

Once... just once, I would like to see you post a news article that isn't about killing someone. You are just a vile individual. We aren't all ignorant, we are perfectly capable of finding these news articles on our own. And your anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-anything you can't find in the Quran demeanor is wearysome.

 

Zoomie​

The U.S. Embassy will be the De facto Capital of Iraq​

1,000 secret CIA flights revealed Documents show 'strange routes' and stopovers​

Congress Should Investigate Bush​

Albright: Bush's use of Christian belief in the absolute truth was worrying​

etc​

Very true but there are some as I saw​

I'm not anti-Jewish OK, I am anti-bad people whether they are Muslims, Jews or whatever​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

Its absolute RUBBISH - Galloway never said that at all !
What Galloway said was that "it could be morally justified"
He did not say that it "WOULD be morally justified"
I'm not even going to debate the difference -
The fact is that if you think Galloway stuffed
the American government good and proper, and he did !
then you will also realise that the propoganda war against
him is very bitter. He went to Washington and they
expected to walk all over him. The fact is he is much
too bright for them and they intend to get him
one way or another. Galloway is a fool in who he chooses
to make a friend, but as a tactical intellect he would make
mincemeat out of 999 of a 1000 people
Why dont you get the facts first before repeating what
deadheads print in the newspapers

 

really?


n the interview, former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan asked: "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?" The Respect MP replies: "Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5020222.stm

 

Thats right - if you believe the paper never altered a word
"would" does not equal "could" in this context, and if you
had an independent account, that is independent of the
british and american media - you would find that his
argument amounted to this:
Some people consider they are at war with the west
therefore they feel justified in seeking the death of
leaders in the west. That argument could be morally justified
it is a matter of whose side you take.
He did not say he thought killing tony blair WOULD be justified
he said others COULD justify it as a logical position
try anything but an english speaking press
I think when he uses the term "moral equivalence! its a giveaway
dont you? If you dont see the point
can I suggest you study some logic
start with any simple study of logic and language
its a philosophy subject you will find near the
beginning of such a book the iexample:
premise 1) socrates was a man
premise 2) all men are mortal
conclusion) socrates is mortal
eventually you will read about moral equivalence
there now go and read something interesting instead of
trying to bring down a man who is trying to get a war stopped

 

right.

 

​

That's what I found, you will find the link in post#1 go and talk to the newspaper.​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

I think you cant justify any killing.

 

I believe he is doing so may Allah strengthen him

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

I do not believe he is doing any of this for muslim principles - he belives it is right
Personally I would see the end of all religion - your gods are fake - and galloway believes that too I imagine - there is morality without a god you know!

 

galloways an arsehole anyway...


and the respect party has some very dodgy funding links

 

Assassination of political leadership is a desperate tactic that often serves as a making a martyr out of the person murdered, and emboldens the political devices of the killer.

Also homocide bombing is not only an unrealistic way of killing a political leader, it is also a tactic to maximize civilian casualties so the whole "as long as nobody else was harmed" is counter to the very nature of blowing yourself up.

 

hehehe ...Oh! sadly you won't be able to see that *Promise*

Different one

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

Example?
and one from your own opinion not your parent/guardian whatever !

Oh I absolutely KNOW that in Britain we will see an end to religion, it has already begun.
The Muslim way has lost the first propoganda battle by being "Seen" to have sided with a criminal mentality- whether most muslims support such a mentality - I do not know - but the religion has been seen to be compromised by politics. It is merely the fact that muslims refuse to separate shariah law from its status as a religion and thereby enters a political conversation. The British had a separation of politics from religion in the civil war over 300 years ago - and that is going to be the basis upon which government will force the muslims to accept. Do you think the ruling power has really forgotten its own history and will run away because a few people believe they have god on their side?
Incedentally, Oliver Cromwell, during the civil war said "Both armies believe they have god on their side, and god must often wonder who is on his side"

 

just wait, and you'll see *Promise*
​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

Now he's being coy. I'm certain that this is his way of telling us that Islam will extinguish all other beliefs and thereby vanquish the infidels.

In other words, Hamas doctrine. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing, Catstevens. You just won't admit it to yourself.

 

you need some rest ​

Have a lemonade​

enjoy Allah's blessings​

*Peace and love* ​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​

 

Cat is a DOGmatist - they all are -
I notice that he will not defend his religion in words not used by the press - I do not even believe he is a muslim - by looking through a few of his posts he just spouts it but doesnt think it.

 

​

TunTunTun​

One More lemonade please​

On ME ​

*Peace and love* ​

​

Yours Sincerely,​

Cat Stevens​