1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A suicide bomb attack on Tony Blair - morally justified

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by dirtydog, 26 May 2006.

  1. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    So says George Galloway, MP.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5020222.stm

    Is Galloway wrong in what he said? Or is he right, but nonetheless shouldn't have said it publicly?

    I think that what he said is correct and I don't have a problem that he said it.
     
  2. rabanthor

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 19 Nov 2002

    Posts: 298

    "It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did."

    So if Galloway believes that, he must believe the deaths in iraq are morally justifiable.
    In my opinion the deaths in iraq are not justifiable and nor would be blairs assassination.
     
  3. Scania

    Capodecina

    Joined: 25 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,469

    Location: On the road....

  4. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    He phrased it badly but I sort of get his point. It's been sensationalised but I'm pretty sure he's simply making the point the the head of state (or pseudo-head of state as Blair is) is "fair game" in a war.

    That doesn't stop him from being a gigantic ******, though.
     
  5. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 24 Jul 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    It is hardly the responsible action of a decent politician to try to "justify" a suicide attack on anyone even Blair.
    I can't stand Blair and if someone topped him I wouldn't be desperately upset however are we really suggesting that our politics can be legitimately suicide bombed?
    Galloway is a publicity seeking scumbag, he disgusts me. Suicide bombs are never the answer either against Blair or galloway - more's the pity.
     
  6. mcmad

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,572

    Fully agree with that, I guess Mr Galloway has not been getting enough attention lately, pathetic behaviour from an elected MP & I dont believe for a second he phrased it badly etc, he knew exactly what he way saying.
     
  7. Cueball

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 24 Sep 2005

    Posts: 1,395

    I think Galloway was implying that it wouldn't come as much of a supprise, eye for an eye and all that...

    It just came across as, well, wrong. I don't think Galloway is really that sick.
     
  8. Saberu

    Mobster

    Joined: 25 Feb 2003

    Posts: 3,263

    Location: Stafford (uni)

    I hate to say this because It's Galloway, but I think hes right.

    However saying that he was wrong to say that to the press because as an MP he has to set an example and ideas like moral justification being whipped around the press are going to strengthen the resolve of any possible suicide bombers who can't see the line between morality and reality. And lets face it anyone that wants to be a suicide bomber is probably a bit mentally unstable or desperate to begin with which just blurs the line even more.

    Saying that I don't wish Tony Blair's death at all, though I wouldn't mind if he was locked up for good :p
     
    Last edited: 26 May 2006
  9. hola_adios

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 1,888

    Location: On the road

    No Galloway is wrong because there is not moral justification to kill anyone. I am not fan of Tony Blair, but this declarations by Galloway show the king of person-politician he is. Just trying to get the next headline, he has created the celebrity-politician, figure which was restricted to other countries and I would hate to see in this country.
    The moral duty that Galloway has forgotten about is to give example, and yes that is a politician's duty. At least it used to be!!
     
  10. Shootist

    Gangster

    Joined: 25 Apr 2006

    Posts: 100

    Galloway is a traitor and if he feels like he does, he should go and live in Iraq.
    Blair is a two faced liar but no-one deserves to die at the hands of a terrorist.
     
  11. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 24 Jul 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    Galloway probably hopes it'll get his "respect" party a few more islamic voters.
     
  12. starscream

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 8 Mar 2003

    Posts: 4,055

    Location: Looking at the internet

    If Russia invaded the UK illegally and occupied it, would an assasination attempt on the Russian leader be morally justified?
     
  13. Saberu

    Mobster

    Joined: 25 Feb 2003

    Posts: 3,263

    Location: Stafford (uni)

    We will have to agree to disagree then. I thought it was morally justified to kill German soldiers during the WW's, or attempt to assisinate Hitler. Does the number of innocent lives being killed affect the morality? In my eyes no.

    Maybe I am an extremist so arrest me, but I wouldn't mourn the death of Tony Blair. I would think it is a shame that the other party (muslim extremists) involved cannot find a peaceful solution to their strife yet I would understand why they did it. Although obviously I would still want them locked up for it for the crime itself.

    To all those of you saying that it is simply a case of "an eye for an eye" well have you overlooked the fact that such extremist action may be done with the intent to prevent future acts of war by Tony Blair and friends.

    Am I playing the devils advocate here? Maybe I am, I've learned a lot in the last few years from this forum and my own research. I've decided our society is FAR from moral and the democratic system is hopelessly flawed so how can we expect to mindlessly say our own morality is balance or law=morality when it's far from the case.

    Sitting in your comfortable chair I suspect you may be unaware as to whether your stance on moral justification has had enough life experience to be conclusive. I think it is a well known hypothetical question to ask if you would kill Hitler before he had a chance to commit his atrocities given the chance? Actually scratch that, just make the question would it be morally justifiable to you if someone else killed him knowing what he was about to do.

    I don't have any life experience in such things but I try to keep a very open mind. Both our viewpoints are biased as neither of us have been put in a position to answer it (see hypothetical question). Starscream's question is also a good one.
     
    Last edited: 27 May 2006
  14. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Is it the method of attack on Blair that you disapprove of, ie. suicide bombs, or do you not believe that he is a legitimate target at all? If the latter, does that mean as others have said above that you would not have approved of killing Hitler in WW2?

    I don't know if this applies to you VIRII, but I get the feeling that a lot of people believe other countries' leaders are fair game to be targetted but when it's OUR leader, that's somehow different. While we may not support an attack on our own leader or want it to happen, we (or I) can nonetheless recognise that it would be legitimate.
     
  15. mcmad

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,572

    No leader is fair game, no civillian is fair game.

    Quite simply, killing will not resolve current ME issues, neither will revenge.

    For Galloway or anyone else to say a suicide bombing on anyone is morally justified is incredible.

    I would suggest they might change their minds if they saw first hand the result of such violence in Iraq, Israel or Palestine.

    Galloway is attention seeking scum.
     
  16. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Galloway agrees with you, going by the article.

    Is it the method of assassination that you have a problem with, or the principle of assassination per se?

    You don't support any attack on any country's leader under any circumstances then? eg. Hitler in WW2? or Saddam in Iraq during the gulf wars?
     
  17. mcmad

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,572

    As will everyone surely ? Does anyone actually think the current cycle of violence in Iraq will resolve anything ? or the Israel/palestine issue will be resolved by violence ?

    I cant really give an impartial / balanced response on the rest dirydog, I dont want to go into details but I have seen up close the results of this kind of action in the past, it skews your opinion somewhat.
     
  18. K.C. Leblanc

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 13 Sep 2003

    Posts: 8,068

    Location: Glocestershire

    If it happened just imagine what this country would be like. Wrongly (IMO) the death of one dishonest pin headed idiot of a politician would have a much bigger impact on freedom in this country then the deaths of 100s of honest hard working people.

    The death of Tony Blair wouldn't really bother me, these thing happen when you start wars. The histeria would bother me however.
     
  19. hola_adios

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 1,888

    Location: On the road

    By definition, is neither moral nor ethical to kill anyone. You speak of german soldiers as killing machines, there were made of the same flesh as you are. I can agree with you that political assasinations can be justified, but not on moral or ethical grounds, and they usually produce more trouble than anything else.


    Quoting MT in her true sense "There is not such a thing as society", if you don't take responsability at personal level, you have not the right to criticise, if you can not react to the fact that a terrorist attack killing your prime minister interfearing in the political affairs of your country, then you don't care about law and order.

    Sorry when I want to do this kind of exercises I watch the Twilight Zone. Same for starscreams question.
     
  20. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 15 Aug 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    Firstly, can I say I personally detest Galloway. I regard him as a deceitful, self-serving, power-hungry, corrupt attention-whore.

    However, on this point, I have to agree with him.

    I also think the first thing people need to do, before reacting to this story, is to try to get clear exactly what he said, and not the somewhat distorted impression that comes from the media hype over what he said.

    There's a BBC Radio 4 interview with Galloway explaining himself. If you look at the quotes of what he said to Piers Morgan, and then listen to the explanation, I can't actually, much though I want to, disagree with him.

    He points out :-
    1. The war in Iraq is illegal.

      Well, that's arguable. But, if you take that as his honest belief, and whether I agree with him or not I have no doubt it is his honest belief, along with millions of other people.

    2. On that assumption, given that the war in Iraq is illegal, are Iraqis justified in resisting against an invading army? Well, if another country had invaded (illegally) the UK, or the US, would UK or US citizens feel fully justified in attacking that army? Were the French Maqui justified in attacking Nazi troops in WW2?

    3. If you are justified in attacking troops on the ground, is it not also justified to attack the officers commanding those troops? Would it not be justified to have gone after Nazi officers giving troops their orders?

    4. If it's justified to attack officers, is it not also justified to attack the politicians that not only give those officers their orders, but who made the decision to invade in the first place?

    5. Several attempts were made by the US/UK coalition to "decapitate" the Iraqi leadership. Anyone not remember stealth bomber/cruise missile attacks on restaurants in Baghdad where Saddam was believed to be?

      So, why is it that a cruise missile attack on Saddam is justified, but a suicide bomb attack (by someone that doesn't have cruise missiles or stealth bombers, after all) isn't?

      Is their some moral difference between trying to kill Saddam with a cruise missle (and, incidentally, killing a lot of perfectly innocent Iraqi civilians in the process) and trying to nail Blair, or Bush for that matter, with a suicide bomb?

    6. Galloway also pointed out that he isn't calling for a suicide bomb attack, doesn't support one, doesn't want one and that if he found out one was being planned, he'd report it to the authorities.

      BUT, given all the above, he thinks Iraqis conducting such an attack (in which nobody else was hurt, remember) would not only be justified, but that there is an ineluctable logic leading to that conclusion.

    It all stems from the assertion that the war is illegal. If it is, I can't fault his logic. Of course, whether it is or not is entirely another story, but that argument can certainly be made, and probably by a large percentage of members here, or in the wider community.

    I personally don't want to see a suicide attack on Blair or anybody else, but I wouldn't cry a single tear if one got him. He, in my opinion, lied his head off to take this country to war, against the wishes of a large percentage of people even despite those lies.

    Had he accurately represented the intelligence we now know he was getting, would even many of those that did support the war still have done so? Could he have got it through Parliament if the extent of the caveats about the intelligence was known? He presented the existence, and threat, from WoMD as being a cast-iron certainty, and the threat as imminent. Well, as we all now know, that was utter cobblers. And what was the result? The country went to war. Billions expended that could have been better spent at home. Hundreds of service personnel killed or wounded. God/Allah only knows how many Iraqi civilians killed or wounded.

    And for what? W0MD? Well, if Blair actually believed that the intelligence was as unequivocal as he tried to convince us it was, then he's an utter moron with no justification at all for running the country. And if he didn't believe it, then he lied to both the people and Parliament of this country, and took us to war on the basis of that lie.

    Either way, Blair is, in my view, an utter disaster for this country, and EVERY citizen of the country is a target because of it. Nothing in recent times, if ever, has inflamed tensions between the West and the Muslim world the way this has, and it could very well still be causing problems in 100 years time. Oh, and the backlash against Muslims because of 7/7 can be placed squarely at Blair's door too. How many people believe 7/7 would have happened had the UK not invaded Iraq?

    So, Mr Bliar, are you actually an utter moron that believed the WoMD evidence was, as YOU personally proclaimed, cast-iron? Or, if not, what was the war actually all about? And why couldn't you be honest with the people that elected you over it? Taking the country to war on the basis of those lies is, in my view, utterly unforgivable, and many of our fellow countrymen have died because of it, and yet more probably will. Their blood, Bliar, is on your hands. And as for the Iraqi dead, well, Tony, I honestly hope they haunt you for the rest of time.

    Personally, I think that Blair is the worst disaster to befall this country in a VERY long time. The arrogance of the pillock, taking the country to war on the basis that he did, is unbelievable. And if he dropped dead tomorrow, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit bothered about it.


    Anyway, back on track. Was Galloway right when he said an attack would be justified? Yes, he was. Do I want one? No. I'd rather like to see exactly what Galloway says he wants to see .... Blair on trial in the Hague for war crimes.

    I simply can't get over the way Bliar conned this country into going to war. Even Bush was more honest about his motives than Blair. Blair is not only a national disgrace. He's an international disgrace. I can understand why people elected him the first time, and maybe even the second time. But last time? If you voted for him, shame on you.