[prog2djent]

This guy, Ghaffar Hussain, sums him up best for me,

http://www.thecommentator.com/articl..._m_one_of_them.

State your reasons too :P

[ak137]

Same way I view Bush, blair, Cameron, Obomber (oops, did I say that out loud?), Cheney & Rumsfeld - a murderer.

[Holmeboy]

Galloway is an egotist, it's a shame really, because he is a really good debater, and is a loss to the Labour Party, if he hadn't been such a maverick and one man show type of guy, he is talented enough to have even have risen to the very summit of British politics, but unfortunately he is loves the cult of personality too much and has ended up as a sideshow.

[FrigidSymphony]

Completely agree with the article posted in the OP. Galloway is a slimy little **** of a man.

[Dubliner]

He seems like an egomaniac. It's a shame the left cannot produce inspiring characters anymore.

[CJM13]

(Original post by ak137)
Same way I view Bush, blair, Cameron, Obomber (oops, did I say that out loud?), Cheney & Rumsfeld - a murderer.

Well, we've got the fanatic's answer out of the way then.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Holmeboy)
because he is a really good debater, .

I beg to differ.

As the article author said, his primary form of debating is a bunch of ad hom attacks, then strawmen (genuine ones), and then lies. Which all amounts to impressing his fanbase who will agree with anything he says just because he's shouting and against the anti-status quo of the status quo, quo ...

[Holmeboy]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Completely agree with the article posted in the OP. Galloway is a slimy little **** of a man.

You can't say that about a fellow Scotsman!

[pr0view]

To join respect party you need to be either

a) asian

b) have a decent amount of facial hair

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Holmeboy)
You can't say that about a fellow Scotsman!

He's a Dundonian and a disgrace to the proud Scottish heritage of left-wing thinking.

[Carecup]

He's one hell of an orator. That being said beyond the couple of speeches and the clip of him acting like a cat in BB I know little to nothing about the man.

[navarre]

Hitchens owned Galloway on several occasions. Galloway is a slimy man, who would happily bed Saddam Hussein, Assad or the current authorotarian Iranian regime, so long as he gets to score anti-Western points.

That he compared his recent unsurprising election win as the Bradford Spring to the heroic efforts of the Arab people to topple the very dictators he supports goes a long way to show just how much up his own backside he is.

[Annoying-Mouse]

I think people can be too critical. We don't know much about him to talk about his intentions. There's nothing wrong with cooperating and being friendly with dictators. Diplomacy is needed to get things done. There's no evidence of Galloway benefiting financially from Saadam. And there could be very good reasons for him supporting tyrants, if for example the alternative is worse.

I'm apathetic to him, I don't like him but I don't hate him. His just another politician to me. His a fairly good rhetorician.

[limetang]

He's scum. Enough said.

[geetar]

He's an awful man, who exhibits the worst kind of political and moral self-delusion.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
I think people can be too critical. We don't know much about him to talk about his intentions. There's nothing wrong with cooperating and being friendly with dictators. Diplomacy is needed to get things done. There's no evidence of Galloway benefiting financially from Saadam. And there could be very good reasons for him supporting tyrants, if for example the alternative is worse.

I'm apathetic to him, I don't like him but I don't hate him. His just another politician to me. His a fairly good rhetorician.

How can someone who presents permenant ad homs and is a walking contradiction be a good rhetorician?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by prog2djent)
How can someone who presents permenant ad homs and is a walking contradiction be a good rhetorician?

Because that's not what's needed to be a good rhetorician?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Because that's not what's needed to be a good rhetorician?

Ad homs are the lowest form of debate, Galloway is essentially a bully when it comes to one-one "debates" with his callers or whenever he's on TV debating Maajid Namaz, Marynam Namazi etc

I think its also impossible to deny he is, in some, a living scottish version of american foreign policy, only with different aims.

Both support dictators, but then they both support rebels, they support liberal revolution, but also support islamist revolution, but one hates the west, and the other wants stability in the middle east - which means the military industrial complex and private firms interest won't be hurt, regardless of what type of people are running/dominant in the country. Funnily enough though, this creates anti-western views, but that doesn't really matter, terrorist attacks on home soil don't affect profit margains and productivity for the military and weapons/oil companies, it means they can expand operations under the guise of fighting the people/situations the created!!!

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Ad homs are the lowest form of debate, Galloway is essentially a bully when it comes to one-one "debates" with his callers or whenever he's on TV debating Maajid Namaz, Marynam Namazi etc

I think its also impossible to deny he is, in some, a living scottish version of american foreign policy, only with different aims.

Both support dictators, but then they both support rebels, they support liberal revolution, but also support islamist revolution, but one hates the west, and the other wants stability in the middle east - which means the military industrial complex and private firms interest won't be hurt, regardless of what type of people are running/dominant in the country. Funnily enough though, this creates anti-western views, but that doesn't really matter, terrorist attacks on home soil don't affect profit margains and productivity for the military and weapons/oil companies, it means they can expand operations under the guise of fighting the people/situations the created!!!

I never said he was a good debater, I said he was a good rhetorician as evident by the following his been able to amass.

Your analysis of American foreign policy is far too simplistic. I'm willing to bet you haven't studied international relations and taken a course on American foreign policy or even read the relevant textbooks and self-studied and are basing this on little populist books or youtube videos by anti-war activists.

Here's a good reason why George Galloway can support both rebels and dictators. The rebels are citizens of their own countries and have their own needs. These needs include freedom. He doesn't disagree with freedom. Ergo, supports oppositions. However, he can recognize other countries have needs. And he can believe that the needs of other countries can turn the country into an ever worse state. For example, see Iranian coup of 53' or Venezuelan coup of 02' both which America was involved and funding for their own interests. He can believe that is more harmful to the cause (i.e. freedom and democracy) hence counter it by aligning himself with dictators and creating counter-propaganda.

[ak137]

(Original post by CJM13)
Well, we've got the fanatic's answer out of the way then.

When will you liberals ever learn. Ask an Iranian what they think of Galloway. Ask an Iraqi what they think of Blair. I very much doubt their they'll be praising them.