Sunday, September 18, 2005

Galloway vs Hitchens

I'm reading the Galloway/Hitchens debate and have come to the conclusion that George Galloway is, as I first suspected, a pompous ass. And he's a compulsive liar. And he's a despicible man. I'll stop there. I think you get the picture.

Image hosted by Photobucket.comImage hosted by Photobucket.com
Image hosted by Photobucket.comImage hosted by Photobucket.com

First of all, I'll say what I said elsewhere; that this was not really a debate. It took very little time for it to devolve into shear guttersniping. Real debates have "impartial" moderators. The moderator "Amy" did a poor job of concealing her own partisanship. Considering the very little she did say, I saw it come out quite plainly twice. Debates are conducted with a certain level of decorum, the participants stick to facts and they should appeal to the intellect of the observers, or audience. Not their thirst for sensationalism as if they're at a cockfight. And last of all, the debators should be evenly matched. Galloway and Hitchens are worlds apart in that respect.

I read in the UK's Independent":
The "sold out" sign on the doors of Baruch College spoke volumes about the thirst for open public debate on the issue, and the rarity of home-grown voices who might quench it. For a subject that is often discussed but seldom debated, the talent had to be imported.

Blow me.

Galloway recalls history in the fashion that one would if they didn't really know history. He makes it up as he goes along. Then he uses his fabrications to bludgeon his opponent. It's really laughable. And the very saddest part is those in the audience who applaud him when he does it, for they do not know history either and accept his fables as fact. Pitiful. Really pitiful.

For instance: He attacks Hitchens and calls him a hypocrite because he said Hitchens does not support the resistance against coalition troops in Iraq, but voiced support for the Algerian resistance against French occupation (in the early 1800s) . You can't even compare the two! Algeria was a Muslim country under Muslim/Sharia rule and Iraq was inhabited by Muslims under a secular dictatorship. The French invaded Algeria for noble initial reasons, but had no intention of leaving (it evolved into more imperial expansionism. They intended for it to become a French Territory) and even at one point began burning Arab and Berber harvests, seizing unarmed civilians and ravaging the country because of their resistance. A far, far cry from what the coalition is doing in Iraq, not to mention that the vast majority of the resistance in Iraq are not even Iraqis. (Another point that Galloway insists is false. He says that only 6% are foreign. I'll be checking on this fact and I do think he'll be found to be lying again. If I'm wrong, I'll say so.)

Galloway said, "Unless we stop invading and occupying Arab and Muslim countries, then we will be forced to endure the atrocities that took place in New York on 9-11 and in London on 7-7, over and over again." As if these attacks weren't already far too often executed or devastating! This is a very often used and convenient way to frame an argument. He ignores or omits all the previous decades of terrorist attacks against the interests of other countries that preceded either invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan and put all his emphasis on what has occurred since. In fact, 9/11 counts as before we invaded anyone. He also neglected to mention the train bombing in Madrid and the fact that even after Spain's capitulation they were still breaking up terror cells planning more attacks within their country. But that would have undercut his argument. So all he really has left is 7/7 in London. In actuality, fewer terrorist attacks in western countries have occurred and more have been thwarted since the invasion of Iraq. Also consider the fact that these attacks since the invasion were, in all likelihood, going to happen anyway, somewhere in some fashion. History had set that precedence. And they don't need a good reason, because they'll just make one up. He also doesn't mention the murder of Theo Van Gogh which had nothing to do with Iraq, but everything to do with militant Islam's agenda no matter who invades who or doesn't or why.

Galloway calls Hitchens a "popinjay". I find that quite amusing since Galloway is the epitome of such a dandified, pompous, self-aggrandizing asshole who has a long history of cavorting with and making excuses for dictators and thugs. His only rebuttal to Hitchens' accurate description of him as such a "cavorter" is, "It's a lie. Buy my book." Puhleeeze.

I still have a lot more to read. But so far, I'm holding my nose because it stinks.

[EDIT] Galloway's 6% number of foreign resistance in Iraq is untrue. It's closer to 70%. I thought it was, but checked to be sure. Did he just pull a number out of his rear quarters? Probably. If one cannot back an argument like his that the majority of Iraqis are fighting against or hate the coalition's presence, then I guess the only recourse is to make up some numbers to fortify the lie which was needed to fortify another lie.

[later] I stand corrected. Seixon clarifies, in the comments, the percentage of foreign resistance.



3 Comments:

At 9/18/2005 01:20:00 PM, Blogger Seixon said...

Thanks for reading!

You read in error regarding the foreign resistance though. The link you supplied spoke only of foreign insurgents, and not their percentage amongst total insurgents.

It says that more than half are Saudis, 13% are Syrians, and Kuwaitis are 5.3%. The rest come from other countries in the Middle East, and also from Europe.

I think that Galloway is probably almost correct on his figure.

The thing is: it doesn't matter. It is a moot point.

The "resistance" in Iraq does not represent the will of the people. The people in Iraq voted political parties into power that want the USA to stay for now.

Most Iraqis, according to polls, want the USA to leave, but they also understand that they need to stay for the time being. That is quite understandable.

The "resistance" kills mostly innocent Iraqis, mostly Shia, and also any Sunnis who "collaborate" with the US and the rest of the Iraqis.

The "resistance" opposes democracy in Iraq, even though Galloway claims that they are fighting for the Iraqis' ability to determine their own politics! The nerve!

And then he slandered Hitchens for going into the gutter for revealing the actions of his "resistance"! He must be delusional.

The "resistance" has killed 19 coalition soldiers in September. They have also killed 121 Iraqi security forces, and 364 Iraqi civilians.

19 "occupiers" killed, 485 Iraqis killed. How in the world can Galloway claim they are fighting for Iraqis?

 
At 9/18/2005 03:59:00 PM, Blogger A Person said...

Seixon, Ah, thank you for the correction. And I understand fully the rest you spoke of. Of course they don't want us there, but I don't believe it's because they oppose us as much as they want to get on with their own way of life. Thankfully now they have a chance at self-determination that they never had before.

BTW, how the hell did you find me? I'm a nobody;-)

 
At 9/19/2005 07:18:00 PM, Blogger Van Helsing said...

George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens? Not exactly a fair fight. I could almost feel sorry for Galloway. Almost, but not quite.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home