| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: "Lefty icon" calls cops on WND |
 |
|
|
|
From: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58924 (which contains 14 mins of audio interview)
I'm not sure I agree with George on some of the things he says in the audio. What does anyone else think. I think he went a bit over the top defending suicide bombings.
| Quote: | Amid a volatile exchange over whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, the leftist British lawmaker George Galloway abruptly booted WND's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein and radio talk-host Rusty Humphries from his London office and handed them over to Parliament police, claiming the two were Zionist operatives who had breached security by falsely presenting themselves as reporters.
The entire fiasco, which occurred in June, was recorded on audio tape.
Klein, author of the recently released book "Schmoozing with Terrorists," said he and Humphries had refrained from releasing the tape until after the publication of "Schmoozing" for fear Klein would lose some Hamas sources. In the book, Klein conducts interviews with the chiefs of most major Palestinian terror organizations, including Hamas.
Klein interviewed Galloway on June 25 for Humphries' national radio show. The two said they traveled to London as part of an investigative series on Islamic extremism in Europe. While in the UK, they attended demonstrations by Al-Ghurabaa, formerly known as Al-Muhajiroun, a Muslim globalist organization, and went to Friday evening prayers at London's Central Mosque.
During their interview with Galloway, Klein called Hamas a terror group, to which the Scottish politician responded, "I don't think Hamas is a terror organization, and it's a very foolish conflation that you make, because Hamas are a national liberation movement with specific goals to liberate their own country, which has been taken from them by others."
Galloway explained Osama bin Laden is a terrorist since the al-Qaida chieftain, whom Galloway claimed was "armed and financed by the U.S." in the 1970s and 1980s, is a "pan-Islamic, nihilistic leader leading a nihilistic organization which seeks to bring about the collapse of national states and re-emergence of the caliphate."
Galloway stated Hamas, by contrast, is not a terror group:
"[Hamas] wants to liberate their country, which has been illegally occupied, and to reassemble their nation, which has been scattered to the four winds. That's an entirely legitimate goal," he said.
Interjecting, Klein stated Hamas' suicide bombings and rocket attacks target civilians.
But Galloway cut Klein off, shouting, "Let me finish, please, because you're here obviously with an agenda, right down to the way you're holding the microphone as a kind of gun at my head."
Galloway argued that when it comes to determining who is a terrorist "what counts is not the firepower involved."
"You're not a terrorist because you’ve got X kind of weapons … you're a terrorist if your goals are illegitimate," he said. "And the goals of the national liberation movements of Palestine are entirely legitimate. And, I've got news for you, are widely supported around the world."
The issue in defining terrorism, Galloway said, is who is the target and what is the purpose of a "military action."
"A suicide bombing of a group of Israeli soldiers in illegal occupation of Palestinian lands is an entirely legitimate military act," Galloway said. "A suicide bombing of a group of Israeli settlers illegally occupying Palestinian land is an entirely justifiable military action. A suicide bombing of a falafel stall in Tel Aviv is not. A bombing of a nightclub in Haifa is not. So there’s your answer."
But Klein once again called Hamas a terror group at which point Galloway declared he had enough.
"Is this an interview or a political broadcast on behalf of the Zionist movement?" asked Galloway. "I didn't even know that you were coming here; you've actually got this interview under false pretenses."
Klein protested, insisting he had told Galloway assistant Kevin Ovenden, who arranged the interview, exactly who he and Humphries represented. At the beginning of the recorded interview, Humphries can be heard clearly identifying himself and Klein as working for Talk Radio Network and WND, respectively.
Klein said he coordinated the interview with Ovenden two weeks in advance, even providing Ovenden with the focus of the scheduled conversation.
The exchange then went like this:
GALLOWAY: I think that we should conclude this interview now. I told you at the beginning, before we started, I don't speak to the Israeli media.
KLEIN: I'm not the Israeli media.
GALLOWAY: Well you might as well be. I have no intention of talking to either of you any further. So, good afternoon gentlemen.
Galloway told the journalists to leave or he would call the police. When Klein, obviously taken aback, invited him to go ahead, Galloway said, "I think I'm going to do exactly that before you leave."
"You are not a journalist, you are a political partisan for Zionism," Galloway thundered at Klein, "Now please leave my office."
On the audio, Ovenden can be heard escorting Klein and Humphries into the elevator and down to the first floor lobby, where security is stationed. Ovenden told the two, "Because you came in under false pretenses you won't set foot" in Westminster again.
Security guards for the parliament office building were waiting in the lobby for Klein and Humphries, who were detained until the London police arrived, the two said.
Upon police interrogation – which also was recorded – Klein asked an officer what he did wrong.
The officer replied that according to Ovenden, a few minutes into the interview with Galloway, the exchange came to a "question that wasn't something that perhaps they were expecting."
"But that isn't illegal," replied Klein.
"I'm not disagreeing with you, alright," the officer said, "but I know for a fact that somebody like Mr. Galloway, if he doesn't think the interview is going to be to his advantage, probably, is not going to want to speak to you."
The two reporters were released but also were told London police had prepared an "intelligence report" on the incident. However, the officers explained to Klein and Humphries this didn't necessarily mean trouble for them, just that the information on their encounter with Galloway would be available in association with any future visit to Parliament.
'George Galloway stole my laptop'
After departing the parliamentary building, Klein said he realized he had left his laptop in Galloway's office.
He phoned Galloway to request the return of his equipment. A female assistant who had witnessed the entire ordeal answered, said Klein. She replied, "Ha. I don't think so," and then abruptly ended the call.
Klein and Humphries said they returned to the parliamentary building and asked the security station to file a criminal complaint against Galloway for stealing Klein's laptop. After a guard called the politician's office, Galloway assistant Ovenden brought down the computer.
Asked for comment by WND, Ovenden denied Galloway's office refused to return Klein's laptop.
He said Klein and Humphries coordinated the interview "under false pretenses," claiming the two told him they worked for ABC Radio Network.
Klein previously served as an analyst and occasional co-host of the John Batchelor Show, which was a national radio program syndicated through ABC Radio. He said he sent Ovenden his bio – which mentioned ABC Radio – along with Humphries' information, but that he was clear the interview was for Humphries show and WND.
"Besides, in the audio file, you can hear Rusty and me introducing ourselves to Galloway, stating exactly who we are," said Klein.
Humphries, who noted Galloway's office was decorated with pictures of communist revolutionaries Fidel Castro and Che Guevara – along with dolls resembling Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – told WND the incident was "a perfect example of what the left does."
"When they don't get their way they want to shut down the conversation," Humphries said. "This is the exact reason why talk radio needs to exist."
The radio talker, though, joked he was disappointed he didn't get to interview Galloway.
"I let Aaron start the interview because I thought he'd be nice," quipped Humphries. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| i agree with him, israeli military targets are legitimate - attacking civilians isn't |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | | i agree with him, israeli military targets are legitimate - attacking civilians isn't |
Hmmm...
It's an undisputable moral fact that any aggressive act in which a civilian dies is unacceptable, but I also find any form of suicide attack (or any kind of attack at all, for that matter) unacceptable on both sides. Regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong", who is the aggressor and who is the trampled upon.
The problem is that the average IDF footsoldier is just a human being who thinks, arguably incorrectly, that they are doing the right thing and defending their homeland, so while I disagree with the regeime they are representing, and while there is plenty of evidence that some IDF soldiers are brutal and abuse their imposed authority, I can't agree that their human bodies are legitimate military targets. It's the same as British or American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan; they're there, and because they're there, they're being killed. The Western, imperialist aggression they represent doesn't mean that it is just when they are blown apart or shot in the head by a sniper.
In all of these instances, the people who are really responsible for the injustices are the ones who are never going to get killed. Bush, Blair, Olmert, etc.
Maybe I'm just a sap, but I can't bring myself to consider even an IDF soldier a legitimate target because it devalues human life. No one is ever a legitimate target in an aggressive war, a cold war, or any type of political, ideological, imperialist oppression.
I stand beside the Palestinians 100%, and utterly oppose the illegal actions of the Israeli government and all who prop it up, but I won't let that extend to dehumanising and statistising flesh and blood. Therefore Israeli soldiers are not legitimate military targets, no matter what the radicalised suicide bomber may reference or garner from The Covenant of Hamas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| nekokate wrote: | | It's an undisputable moral fact that any aggressive act in which a civilian dies is unacceptable, but I also find any form of suicide attack (or any kind of attack at all, for that matter) unacceptable on both sides. Regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong", who is the aggressor and who is the trampled upon. |
i do kinda agree with that, morally - killing is wrong, on any side. but the occupation is anything but moral and i think we have to look at this in the context of the reality of situation. if the occupiers started acting morally, then yeah we could apply the same standards to the occupied - but you can't really apply moral standards to an immoral occupation, i don't think. maybe this is a bit deep for me  wheres pirty 
| nekokate wrote: | | The problem is that the average IDF footsoldier is just a human being who thinks, arguably incorrectly, that they are doing the right thing and defending their homeland, so while I disagree with the regeime they are representing, and while there is plenty of evidence that some IDF soldiers are brutal and abuse their imposed authority, I can't agree that their human bodies are legitimate military targets. It's the same as British or American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan; they're there, and because they're there, they're being killed. The Western, imperialist aggression they represent doesn't mean that it is just when they are blown apart or shot in the head by a sniper. |
i disagree here, and under international law, an occupied people are entitled to resist occupation. so although i don't like british troops being killed in iraq or afghanistan, again, i support the resistances right to fight against occupation.
| nekokate wrote: | | In all of these instances, the people who are really responsible for the injustices are the ones who are never going to get killed. Bush, Blair, Olmert, etc. |
i totally agree with that 
| nekokate wrote: | | Maybe I'm just a sap, |
sap
| nekokate wrote: | | but I can't bring myself to consider even an IDF soldier a legitimate target because it devalues human life. No one is ever a legitimate target in an aggressive war, a cold war, or any type of political, ideological, imperialist oppression. |
i can't really make sense of this - aggressive war, brutal occupation, by there very nature devalues human life.
i mean, whats an aggressive war with no targets?! it sounds nice though
| nekokate wrote: | | I stand beside the Palestinians 100%, and utterly oppose the illegal actions of the Israeli government and all who prop it up, but I won't let that extend to dehumanising and statistising flesh and blood. Therefore Israeli soldiers are not legitimate military targets, no matter what the radicalised suicide bomber may reference or garner from The Covenant of Hamas. |
or international law
look at it another way, if the hitler suddenly rose from the grave, invaded and occupied britain with a load of nazi soldiers, would those nazi soldiers be legitimate targets of our resistance? to me, they would be
you raise interesting points, and a lot i agree with, but maybe i just can't think about it deeply enough, or apply those moral standards to immoral situations - but to me, invading armies, occupying forces, are legitimate targets for the resistance, and like i said under international law, an occupied people are entitled to fight that occupation - not civilians - but the instruments ( the idf, british troops etc ) of that occupation or aggression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | | i do kinda agree with that, morally - killing is wrong, on any side. but the occupation is anything but moral and i think we have to look at this in the context of the reality of situation. if the occupiers started acting morally, then yeah we could apply the same standards to the occupied - but you can't really apply moral standards to an immoral occupation, i don't think. |
| luke wrote: | | you raise interesting points, and a lot i agree with, but maybe i just can't think about it deeply enough, or apply those moral standards to immoral situations |
But applying moral standards to immoral situations is what makes one moral. The concept of morality can only be understood by the fact that immorality exists. Think about this: If there was no such thing as darkness, we wouldn't have a word for light, because we wouldn't have a need to differentiate.
| luke wrote: | | look at it another way, if the hitler suddenly rose from the grave, invaded and occupied britain with a load of nazi soldiers, would those nazi soldiers be legitimate targets of our resistance? to me, they would be. |
That's an interesting analogy. My only answer to it is that Hitler was systematically annihilating entire races of people (well, trying to). While the Israeli, Zionist regime may be repugnant and illegal, they are not herding Arabs like cattle into chambers filled with Zyklon B and disintegrating their emaciated bodies in mass pits filled with quick-lime. It's a different thing. A terrible thing that Israel is doing, but a demonstrably different thing.
And "the hitler"? You mean there's more than one?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i should have just said you was a sap and left it at that
| nekokate wrote: | | But applying moral standards to immoral situations is what makes one moral. The concept of morality can only be understood by the fact that immorality exists. Think about this: If there was no such thing as darkness, we wouldn't have a word for light, because we wouldn't have a need to differentiate. |
yeah, true.
| nekokate wrote: | | That's an interesting analogy. My only answer to it is that Hitler was systematically annihilating entire races of people (well, trying to). While the Israeli, Zionist regime may be repugnant and illegal, they are not herding Arabs like cattle into chambers filled with Zyklon B and disintegrating their emaciated bodies in mass pits filled with quick-lime. It's a different thing. A terrible thing that Israel is doing, but a demonstrably different thing. |
alright, leave out hitler, that kinda messed it up - just say a new bunch of crazies, or say even the zionists decided they didn't want palestine anymore and were going to occupy our country? would it be legitimate for us for resist their occupation? international law says it is
| nekokate wrote: | | And "the hitler"? You mean there's more than one? |
eddie hitler - i didn't want you to get confused 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
The problem you have, Luke, is that you rely on analogies to try and get your point across. Forget "imagine this was this, and that was that", let's just focus on what IS.
I don't need to imagine the IDF was a strawberry and the Palestinians were break-dancing grapefruits to get perspective on the conflict - I just imagine that the IDF is the IDF and the Palestinians are the Palestinians. Thus I conclude that no human being is a legitimate target, no human being deserves to die.
If you're an Israeli soldier and you pull the trigger of a rifle, splattering the brain of an Arab across the dust roads of the West Bank, that is wrong. If you're an activist within Hamas and you fire a rocket over the wall and it detonates a Jew, that is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| I think the Palestinians are completely within their rights to kill as many IDF as they possibly can. The fact that war is wrong is by the by when someone's stolen your house and land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| nekokate wrote: | | The problem you have, Luke, is that you rely on analogies to try and get your point across. Forget "imagine this was this, and that was that", let's just focus on what IS. |
i only asked that way because i wanted to see what you thought - if this country was occupied, would you think it justified to fight the occupiers? or would you sit in your house hoping things would get better as they stole your land and killed your people?
you can't equate the violence of the occupied and occupiers - the occupiers caused it, resistance to them is legitimate, and legal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salim201
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| thats well funny. I agree pretty much with galloway's position, i don't understand what peoples' problems are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | I think the Palestinians are completely within their rights to kill as many IDF as they possibly can. The fact that war is wrong is by the by when someone's stolen your house and land. |
You have to be kidding me. You mean that if every single member of the IDF was blown to pieces today, you'd celebrate that? There's a difference between being anti-Israeli government regeme and simply anti-Israeli human.
I despise the American government, but I don't want to see "as many American soldiers as possible" killed. Remember that Israeli soldiers are exactly the same sort of pawns as American and British soldiers. It's not their fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Where did I say anything about celebration? I'm saying that they are within their rights to do what they want on their land. They wouldn't need to do anything if they hadn't been forced into a corner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | Where did I say anything about celebration? I'm saying that they are within their rights to do what they want on their land. They wouldn't need to do anything if they hadn't been forced into a corner. |
Well, if you state that you think Palestinians should kill as many IDF as they can, surely you support that killing. Supporting something is very close to celebrating it. I support Galloway, therefore I celebrate him. I support this website, therefore I celebrate it.
I won't celebrate the killing of human beings, however. I think about their parents, their children and their lovers. Just because you're an Israeli doesn't make you a cunt, and worthy of death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| I didn't say they should kill people - I said they were within their rights to do so. What you're suggesting is like telling a mugging victim they shouldn't fight back and I just don't agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
