Mr Galloway Wins Again
ByI think I just witnessed a train wreck in slow motion. The Galloway versus Hitchens debate in New York was a traversty that I admit I never foresaw, but which with the benefit of hindsight may have been only too obvious from the start. The debate sold out more than a week ago so I watched live on the Internet as Hitchens disintegrated before my eyes.
Hitchens was terrible. He stammered and mumbled his way through the debate, which lasted almost two hours. Occasionally pursuasive, but mostly unsteady, his arguments often lacked direction and veered off on tangents which though powerful on the pages of a magazine or webpage, were no match for Galloway’s soapbox bluster. I didn’t score each of the rounds, but I would say Galloway won each and every one of them. At the end, when it looked like Hitchens was about to make a comeback, he shot himself in both feet and a couple of other orifices to boot, by appearing to defend Bush’s handling of the New Orleans flood crisis by springing to the defense of the troops who were belatedly deployed to the scene.
All Hitchens had to do was condemn Bush—for his mishandling of the war and the post-war reconstruction in Iraq, or for his handling of the hurricane relief effort, and I would have been with him. Instead, he chose to castigate the hecklers in the audience like a school marm who has lost control in an assembly.
That’s not to say that Galloway didn’t score a number of own goals himself. The neutral observer, if forced to choose between the two (and believe me it would have to be a pretty forceful request based on the performances of these two tonight), would no doubt rather vote for a bumbling Hitchens than a bullying Galloway.
Galloway is so full of anger and self righteousness that there was barely any need for a microphone. Moreover, his use of the lecturn as a prop to be leaned against and launched from as he delivered his tirades was eerily reminiscent of one Adolph Hitler. I can’t believe I am even comparing Galloway to the bogeyman of the 20th century, but it is no inch of an exaggeration. He delivers his bluster with such venom that he is a dead ringer for the leader of the Third Reich. It is, no doubt, one of the things that makes him at once so disgusting, so popular and so doomed to failure.
Among Galloway’s ugly bombast tonight were such gems as his blatant support of the murderous Iraqi insurgency, his claims that the US and the UK were the two rogue states in the world, his accusations that Britain and America sent Islamists to Afghanistan and—my personal favorite—his singling out of US support for Israel as the reason for September 11 while standing less than a couple of miles from Ground Zero almost four years to the day since the attacks took place. Even with an audience which sounded decidedly more supportive than antagonistic towards Galloway he was roundly and loudly booed for a significant amount of time.
By the end, the debate had degenerated into a meandering ramble from Hitchens while Galloway largely ignored his questions to vent spleen in whatever way he saw fit. Possibly one of the most telling points was when Galloway informed the moderator that it was time to bring things to an end before he launched into another one of those venomous speeches which he has obviously give 1,000 times before.
This was a debate with no direction; a debate with a moderator who showed far too much respect for both speakers while neither appeared willing to show much respect for anyone else in the room.
It took two British people to debate the Iraq War in America, but what was sadly lacking was a British moderator to keep the two apart long enough to give some form and meaning to the debate—although I doubt under such circumstances Hitchens would have come off any better.
I was left with a foul taste in my mouth and a rock in my stomach as Hitchens edged away from the podium for what was probably a brief and unpopular book signing, while I imagined a long and snaking line towards the table of gorgeous George Galloway, as he basks in the permatan orange glow of his ever-increasing popularity among people who confuse oration and venom with leadership and passion.
Galloway’s signing was for his new book When Mr Galloway Went to Washington. After tonight’s performance, he may be offered a deal to write a sequel, When Mr Galloway Went to New York. Thank god for the folks at Harry’s Place doing a sterling job of revealing Galloway to be the man he really isâ€â€a populist, fascist thug.
97 Comments
September 15th, 2005 at 3:13 am
Great report Paul>
while Galloway largely ignored his questions to vent spleen in whatever way he saw fit
September 15th, 2005 at 3:15 am
Something went wrong there.
“while Galloway largely ignored his questions to vent spleen in whatever way he saw fit”
That does seem to be his technique.
Galloway might talk crap but he does it very well.
September 15th, 2005 at 5:00 am
I’m a little baffled by this blogpost. In what way did Galloway possibly win that debate? Are you one of these hoax people who were mulling about before the Bethnal Green election, claiming that you’d never thought much of Galloway until you heard unreasonable criticism against him on Harry’s place and will therefore now vote Respect!.
Yes, Galloway did shout the loudest especially at the beginning, but then embarrassingly had to retreat and tone it down as Hitchens’ detail totally bamboozled him. James Naughtie off the Today programme, who was in the audience himself, said surprisingly Hitchens managed to win around quite a few of the overwhelming antiwar audience that he spoke with afterwards. My firm impression is that Hitchens led throughout.
September 15th, 2005 at 7:44 am
This just seems incoherent and a bit sad:
“Among Galloway’s ugly bombast tonight were such gems as his blatant support of the murderous Iraqi insurgency”
This is a suprise? Its what the argument is all about. If its an illegal invasion and occupation then people have a right to resist it. And the horrors now unfolding are connected to a war being waged not just by the insurgency but by the coalition and its backers (one imagines Blair ‘there is a connection but its a twisted connection’). This is called ‘ugly bombast’, which is apparently ‘blatant’.
“…his claims that the US and the UK were the two rogue states in the world”
Given that ‘rogue state’ simply means any state that opposes the US and its partners (and from a part of the world where big powers can get away with arm-twisting), Galloway here simply asks us to take the phoney pretext seriously. Perhaps Galloways invoking of a few passages from St Augustine’s confessions would be preferred. St Augustine uses essentially the same argumentative move.
“…his accusations that Britain and America sent Islamists to Afghanistan”
So is the vast apparatus set up by the US with its partners inside and outside the Islamic world to do precisely this not allowed to be spoken about? Amply documented in a range of historical accounts incidently. Its tasteless perhaps? In New York? In the US?
“his singling out of US support for Israel as the reason for September 11 while standing less than a couple of miles from Ground Zero almost four years to the day since the attacks took place”
Perhaps it would have been better if he made the rather obvious point somewhere else? Is this the famous cultural relativism you guys like to go on about? Would anyone seriously suggest that US support for Israel has not historically generated political currents which Bin Laden draws on?
Just perplexing. Oh and then apparently there was the Hitlerian way he gripped the lecturn. If this is the best pro-war liberals can do one wonders why they criticise Hitchens. I suspect that the problem is not Hitchens. Its difficulties in sustaining a coherent argument. I do detect a split in reactions to this. There are those who react to the crisis of their position by dropping leftist language and simply embracing Bush. And there are those who try and distance themselves from Bush but still support the war.
I have to admit its interesting to watch.
September 15th, 2005 at 8:07 am
“I can’t believe I am even comparing Galloway to the bogeyman of the 20th century, but it is no inch of an exaggeration”
I’m afraid that’s one of the most deeply repulsive lines from a pro-war ‘left’ commentator, I’ve ever read. I mean where do you go from here? You can’t go any lower.
‘No inch of an exaggeration’?!!!
September 15th, 2005 at 8:40 am
This is a suprise? Its what the argument is all about. If its an illegal invasion and occupation then people have a right to resist it. And the horrors now unfolding are connected to a war being waged not just by the insurgency but by the coalition and its backers (one imagines Blair ‘there is a connection but its a twisted connection’). This is called ‘ugly bombast’, which is apparently ‘blatant’.
Sort of. It’s naive to think that the Iraqi resistance is fighting for the liberation of Iraq’s people more than fighting–ruthlessly–for power. Galloway has his own involvement with Tariq whomever in Iraq, a man seemingly quite rich and powerful and probably not clean. So we can’t expect the MP to come totally clean with us about what is going on over there.
Naturally he’s a great deal more beautiful and convincing than Hitchens, who really needed to, after 2001, spend some time grieving and away from the public eye because the event clearly turned him mad. Quite sad.
September 15th, 2005 at 8:43 am
Oh, did either one of these two men mention the British empire’s excellent foresight in creating the oil province of Iraq? Much, much better than self-determination.
September 15th, 2005 at 9:22 am
Well Phineas I suspect there is a ruthless fight for power. I don’t imagine civil wars are usually fought gently. They’re terrible things generally. Its being fought ruthlessly on all sides and one difficulty is that the ‘Iraqi’ forces are one side in it. One feature of the curious inter-relation between the administration, the state, the coalition, the shadow state, local militia’s, etc is the slippage between war against the coalition and sectarian carnage. Again serious students of these sorts of conflict would not be surprised. The Algerian war was both a war of liberation and a ruthless carnage which killed more Algerians then French and involved horrific atrocities against large sections of the civilian population. So I don’t think there is anything mutually exclusive about ‘war of liberation’ and a ‘ruthless fight for power’. They tend to go togeather. As does the kind of moralising guff we hear from supporters of the coalition.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘involvement’ with Tariq Aziz (presumably that he knew him, and today calls for the US to abide by international law and either clarify why they’re holding him or release him). The reasons for Galloway’s ‘involvement’ with Aziz are quite clear and there is nothing unusual about someone campaigning against sanctions against a third world country knowing a politician from that third world country. As a firm opponent of cultural relativism and therefore logically, a proponent of moral equivilance, I don’t see why Galloway is singled out for knowing one person who was rich and powerful, generally by those richer and more powerful yet.
Exactly what Galloway is not coming clean about is unclear. Its noticable that the awful carnage in Baghdad yesterday was covered but we know almost nothing about the carnage just north of it. Galloway is rather interested in this imbalence (and I suspect that rather then amoral whataboutary this question might become the question of questions in ensuing months: questions of a tragic and practical nature for the future of Iraq, as opposed to portentious moral grandstanding here in the west). I find it hard to feel sympathy for someone who goes mad at the loss of a friend but finds it incomprehensible that other people with somewhat more serious problems in scale might also go mad.
According to one academic who specialises in Iraq US soldiers were still using information from British sources written during their previous wildly popular excursion. Obviously things have changed a bit so its turned out a bit ineffective. Much of what is happening today, including historical tensions between different conceptions of sovereignty do stem from that period though. Used in a different way this experiance has rather a lot to tell us.
September 15th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Mark, thank you!
Barry…
Barry, I tuned in to watch Hitchens wipe the floor with Galloway and instead I thought Galloway had the better of Hitchens. Naughtie was in the Baruch Center, but watching on the Internet I thought Hitchens rarely got into his stride.
I seriously doubt that many minds were changed by either side last night. Although I hope, and I am sure, that Galloway’s fuhrer-like performance may have switched many people off.
I have never and will never think anything of George Galloway. I have no idea where you could get this idea from having read my post.
Johng, I fear we could argue until the cows come home. I’ll agree to disagree with you for now, because on the night, in my opinion, my man Hitchens failed to deliver a pursuasive argument.
But I will say this. If the world ever does turn in the way you want it to, and the Hamases and the Hezbollahs and the Muslim Brotherhoods of this world do make it into power, I do hope you take the time to visit those countries and walk among the fearful people who dare not speak their mind, and say to yourself “now I am happy, for these people are truly free.”
Yes, US and UK foreign policy has been terrible in the Middle East in the past. But how can you oppose a policy which aims to bring democracy to that region now? How can you support the very people, the insurgents, whose actions are causing the US and Britain to remain in Iraq even longer? And who are killing hundreds of their own countrymen each week? How can you look up to a man, Gorgeous George, who incites such people to kill the citizens of his own country, some no doubt, members of his own parliamentary constituency?
Galloway cares for no one but himself. And he’s having a wonderful time now that he has finally wedged his ugly little body within the spotlight.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Ed, why is the comparison to HItler deeply repulsive? I believe the comparison was with their rhetorical styles, not their foreign or domestic policies. I certainly loathe it when anyone compares Bush to Hitler, in a broad sense, because it demonstrates a complete lack of historical perspective, but to say someone sounds/looks like Hitler is not to suggest they are Hitler. I have a moustache exactly like Stalin’s but no-one would suggest I am a genocidal dictator.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:10 am
I agree about the danger of interminiable argument. But I am puzzled by certain rhetorical devices used by your side of the argument (I’m of course familiar enough with those used on my own side!). Hizbullah of course would be in power in Lebanon if there was a democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood are of course banned from taking part in elections in Egypt (which is one reason among many why the elections in that part of the world were a farce).
So when you talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East I’m left entirely in the dark about what you mean. These are serious problems for people like me as well of course, but I see no serious attempts to explain or work out what to do about these paradoxes from advocates of the war like yourself. I see rather more serious consideration of these problems in the anti-war movement to be honest. I think this is not really your fault, it simply reflects the fact that for the US and Britain, democracy is simply a device for policing the south, and nothing to do with real representation.
Given the resulting contests about what we mean by democracy its clear that the idea that simply stating that one ‘aims to bring democracy’ means very little. On the one hand Islamists who are majorities are dismissed because they would use undemocratic methods when in power. On the other hand majorities which support the west are excused if they carry out ethnic cleansing on the basis that they are majorities.
The remarkable demonisation of the entire Sunni population in Iraq by those who yesterday wanted to protect them from ‘pro-Iranian’ shi’a’s shows that anyone in the middle east (of whatever confession or ethnicity) would be very unwise to take this language without at least a large pinch of salt. Perhaps the old policy of containment has been overturned. But the same realist strategems seem to apply to the new ‘democracy’ argument.
And again the idea that if there was’nt an insurgency there would’nt be an occupation (ie they’re only making it worst for themselves) leaves out entirely equations referred to in my second post. I think people do have a right to resist occupation. You don’t. And thats fair enough. But if you accept that people had a right to disagree about the war, then you must accept that MP’s had a right to do so as well, and as one of the basis of opposition, was that it was believed to be illegal, there can be nothing wrong with supporting the resistance. Those troops are not there in my name, I want them home, but as my old right wing history teacher used to always say of these situations (an old colonial man) ‘they should’nt be there if they can’t take a joke’. Big boys games and all that.
Having knocked about in the Labour Movement for rather a long period in time I find George rather less strange then you do. This notion that he’s got no principles confuses the kind of arrogance he represents. There are different sorts.
Anyway…
September 15th, 2005 at 11:11 am
I don’t think comparing Hitler to Galloway was simply a comment on style. Come on. It is of course ridiculous. It says more about the extremely tame concensus politics that is now equated with democratic civility then anything else.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:16 am
I’m with Nick on this one, I have a bald head like Buddha and I’ve just spent the afternoon at a peepshow…
September 15th, 2005 at 11:21 am
“Yes, US and UK foreign policy has been terrible in the Middle East in the past”
Of course its absolutely spiffing these days…That I think is the disagreement.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:24 am
Come on johng – where’s your sense of humour? That Stalin line was a killer. Also, if there are any comparisons to be made with Hitler, it would be good to remember that he came to power legitimately and democratically.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Unlike the Buddha.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Look really can’t you see I’m a humourless leftie on this blog by mistake? Do you really imagine I laugh at jokes? Honestly. Some people have no respect. Anyway the Hitler and democracy line is interesting as is the extraordinary use of the Hitler analogy. From Nasser to Milosovic, from Arafat to Bin Laden. All of this hardly attracts a raised eyebrow. Try making a link between George Bush and Hitler. Thats entirely different. Intriguingly the same is true if a leftist calls Sharon Hitler. If on the other hand an Israeli settler calls Sharon Hitler its an entirely different matter. None of this of course is actually about Hitler anymore. Its just the political equivilant of swearing for effect. Islamofascism is my favorite.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Oh shit. Its September. Its New York. Wrong month. Wrong place. I must withdraw my last remark. I really wonder whether pro-war Americans realise quite how morally offensive and self regarding that BS is. I suspect many do. Hitchens seems like a wannabe American. Hell here in London we put up with that kind of patronising crap for 2 weeks. If it had been as awful as 9.11 it would probably have been 6 months. But really. Its actually diminishing and disrespectful. Its when the messages started coming trying to use our suffering to back political designs that it all collapsed.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:59 am
What’s wrong with ‘Islamofascism’? Have you read the crap that Qutb and the like wrote. This is total world order utopian insanity of the highest order. This is not Ghandi struggling for independance and self-determination, this is dudes wanting to take over the world, and not in a good way.
What do you think of that, Lenin? (How does that rate in the ranking of political swears?)
September 15th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Nick, there is nothing wrong with the opressed empowering themselves though murder. They’re opressed, what else have they got? I mean that. You Trot.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Hey and those guys in Darfur aren’t fascists, man, they’re just governing in their own, non-Western-imposed way, so leave off them, er…, Rhodes, or, er…, Mussolini. No, Franco!
September 15th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Nick
Sorry – coming back at this late. Yes, the comparison to Hitler is made in the context of remarks about Galloway as a ‘demagogue’. The surface comparison is one of speaking syle – but come on, you’d have to be rather naive not to pick up on other suggested ‘parallels’ here. Why compare Galloway to Hitler – and not any other of the huge number passionate public speakers? The choice is deliberate.
Further, at the end of the post comes the telling line – Galloway is apparently a ‘fascist’. He’s not ‘like a fascist’ – he is ‘a fascist’.
Aside from the politically dangerous watering down of the concept of fascism and Nazism here, this is just low.
Incidentally, I oppose comparisons between Bush and Hitler. Clearly there is no serious parallel to be made here.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Come on, dude, Hitler has a pretty distinctive style when it comes to public speaking. I couldn’t tell you how Pol Pot, delivered speeches, or even Stalin, and I am well-schooled, my friend. Also, you can’t make any comparison to Hitler in a full sense if the person you’re comparing to him is not in a position of power. Who knows what Galloway might do with a Wehrmacht and SS at his disposal. Plus, he said the greatest tragedy of his life was the collapse of the Soviet Union, so I’m guessing it wouldn’t be pretty.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Sorry Ed, I must protest. the choice was not deliberate. That’s why I followed my comparison with the words
I really would not use that comparison lightly. But George Galloway scares me.
I watched the debate online with my wife sitting next to me. About half way through one of his tirades I told her that he reminded me of Hitler and she said that she had just been thinking exactly the same thing.
Now, possibly after one and a half years of marriage, our minds have been alligned so as to make us think exactly the same thoughts at the same moment.
But I would hazard a guess that we both thought the same thing at the same time because he looked like he had stepped straight out of a 1930s newsreel.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Hey man, its Gandhi, not Ghandi first off. And yes I have read Qutb’s Milestones. Have you? I doubt it very much. I’ve also read a lot about the Muslim Brotherhood. None of it has anything to do with ‘fascism’. “Dudes waiting to take over the world and not in a good way”. Jesus thats funny. Unlike ‘dudes’ like Bush and Cheny (presumably they’re doing so in a ‘good’ way?).
Radical Islam historically just is an (often reactionary) off-shoot of anti-colonial moods and movements. American foreign policy was not responsible for the gestation of these moods and movements (hey that was us Brits and French) but you certainly made up for lost time.
And if today you occupy the traditional heartlands of Arab Nationalism with the troops of the traditional enemies of Arab Nationalism (bar the French who are somewhat more sensible), and declare that it is to be incorperated into a new regional order which will serve western interests (most of the nationalism’s in the region only ended hundreds of years of fighting this about thirty years ago) expect a tiny bit of friction.
Especially from Islamists waiting in the wings who can hardly believe their good fortune. And no I doubt very much that the tribal gangs in Darfor are ‘fascists’. I doubt they would even know what the word meant.
And anyway. When are you guys going to get over the Second World war. It was all such a long time ago after all.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Ed, fascisism isn’t juice, you can’t water it down. I think Paul might have been suggesting that Galloway is… A Fascist!
No added water.
Just like the fascists that were around when wars were wars and everyone knew were they stood with each other. Crazy days. He’s more of a latter day Lord Haw haw than Hitler.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Hey Man, it’s Cheney not Cheny first off…
September 15th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
2 British antisemites square off and you’re surprised the result wasn’t more illuminating?
September 15th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Hey johng, thanks for thinking my line was funny. I suspect that’s because it was funny. Everyone knows that no one tries to take over the world in a good way anymore (unlike the Greeks, Romans, Soviets etc).
Also, you don’t have to call yourself a fascist to be one. Do the BNP use the word fascist much on their website? I suspect that if the guys in Darfur had a website (and who doesn’t nowadays) they would use the word ‘liberator’ or ‘petting zoo’ or something, in the same way that East Germany used the word ‘Democracy’. Maybe we should use the phrase ‘Muslim Supremisist’ instead. Would that make you feel better?
September 15th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
I should clarify that I don’t compare Hitler to anyone much. Hitler was a demagogue. This does’nt mean all demogogues are Hitler. Its also true that I don’t think Hitler’s demogoguery was the main feature of the Nazies rise to power. I think the belief that because Galloway is a fierce public speaker it makes him like Hitler is partly a misunderstanding of Hitler (widely shared in popular culture) which equates fear of fascism with fear of the mob. There’s good mobs and bad mobs in my view. Galloway’s style is a refinement of the language of class warfare which his generation of labour movement activists where practically born into. This Hitchens himself acknowledged in his ambivulent coverage of his performance in the Senate in the Mirror. At some level I think it tears him up to be confronted with that style. This is true whatever your views of what Galloway represents personally. Its like the divide in Britain on Scargill. Anyone who thought Scargill was like a fascist had never met a British red. Or on the other hand they equated reds with fascists.
Having said that I don’t fling comparisons with Hitler about, I also believe that given the fact that Hitler grew out of western culture (and is indeed incomprensible without a knowledge of that culture) we have a responsibility to understand that he does not belong to something wholly outside our own world and experiance. The attempt to make him the incarnation of evil rather then a historical figure is an attempt to dodge rather difficult questions about ourselves. As is the rather strange attribution of Hitlerism to movements utterly removed from our own brand of modernity.
We’re not over Hitler yet. We ought to be more vigilant about trends in our own culture. The fact that Hitler parrallels are now largely raised about ethnic minorities in the west and traditionally subordinate nations elsewhere is a fairly chilling irony.
As well as George Galloway of course. Who would just laugh though.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
And Izzy brings another great political swearword into the mix.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Scargill defended miners, chum, not murderers. Anyone who thinks he is a fascist is a moron.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
But they’re not Muslim supremicists. The people they’re in conflict with are Muslims. And no the parrallel with the BNP falls flat. They are conciously trying to revamp themselves as post-fascists. The janjaweed (which just means ‘the bad ones’ or something like that, its clearly not what they call themselves) are the product of regional tensions (the local people were worried about the peace deal with the christians in the south further marginalising them, whilst the regime used local pastoralists who traditionally clashed with them over land to put down the resulting insurgency). The result as is frequently the case in these horrific situations was ethnic cleansing (although not as appalling as some of what has been going on until very recently in parts of the west coast of Africa and the whole swathe of genocide which cuts across the great lakes region up until the present and has very similar roots). The idea that this is fundementally about Islam let alone ‘fascism’ is ridiculous and yet another example of using terrible suffering to point-score in the UN. Bloody shameful in my view. Not everything is about Islam you know.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
But Nick the discussion was about style rather then substance. Galloways style comes from the same place Scargill’s did. And both were attacked in the same way. The substance we can argue about.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Hitchens an anti-semite? Thats a new one. Tell all. Please. This is great.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Gandhi deserves to have his name spelt right. Shady Shanie does’nt.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Hitchens lamented the death of Edward Said, wrote a very nasty article criticizing Elie Wiesel, and more recently wrote a strange article about circumcision. And, I think he recently found out he’s Jewish.
The guy is a creep is all. He set a perjury trap for a Clinton aide (who was his own friend) during the disgusting Monicagate bullshit fiasco…c’mon.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
Hitchens was an ardent anti-Zionist before 9/11.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
OK, I’ll give you the Dafur thing – out of my depth there. The point about rhetorical style is that Galloway (and perhaps Scargill – I am but a mere slip of a lad and don’t remember that much) has a style similar to Hitler. Whether he is also a fascist is a different, but important question. You and I may understand that distinction (and I know well enough that Hitler’s moustache and arm waving didn’t lead to Auschwitz) but anyone who thinks that comparing Galloway at the podium to Hitler is missing the point.
The little of Qutb that I have read is pretty much Islamic Supremisist when boiled down. And just so you know where I’m coming from: Western/post-Imperialist influence in the Middle East is comparable to the effect of the Versaille Treaty in the rise of Nazism. Nazism was still bad.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
How does any of that that make him an anti-semite?
September 15th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Hitchens is a creep. Galloway is a creep. They are both shameless opportunists and self-promoters. Neither is ethical.
Who cares…
September 15th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
How does any of that make either of them an anti-semite?
September 15th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
What do you care?
September 15th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
How cryptic of you, Izzy. I am interested in what qualifies one as an anti-semite.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Why?
September 15th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
I mean, that’s sort of a weird thing to be interested in, don’t you think?
September 15th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Oh I see Izzie anyone who writes nice things about Edward Said is an anti-semite. I can see you come from the fair and balenced school of political reportage. What I find most puzzling is that Hitchens himself now sits in the same camp. Despite knowing better.
Nick, I don’t think the Versailles treaty is quite the correct comparison. One reason why its a problem is that revanchist sentiments in Germany were wholly reactionary even if we can explain why they arose. The whole cultural movement of Arab Nationalism cannot so be described, and that movement, of neccessity anti-western (how could it have been anything else?), was what constituted movements for independence in the region.
Qutb without question represented a reactionary current within that general trend. But the difficulty comes when any anti-western rhetoric within the blend is compared with Hitlerian schemes for world domination. This is really a complete misreading and misunderstanding of the context of this form of politics. In reality both in the period of direct colonial rule, then the period of truncated sovereignties (extending right up until the end of the 1950’s and beyond in different parts) and then concurrently during the cold war, with its pacts and encirclements it was we who were scheming to dominate them and not the other way round.
Its kind of important to understand this if you are to understand the extremely troubled politics of the region. The dramatic nature of these decades in that part of the world and then the terrible sense of failure when these dreams and hopes were shattered across the rocks of corrupt regimes, military dictatorships, and deals with the west, also helps to explain the virulence with which an older tradition of Islamicism was suddenly reforged in the 1970’s.
Its a heartbreaking story really. Of course this revolt then runs into the sands of repression in the 1980’s as well and the situation seems utterly dark and hopeless. Out of this pathology piled on pathology emerges Bin Laden. A small player suddenly made much bigger by events subsequent to 9.11.
Where she stops nobody knows. It really would be best just to get off.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Yeah given the meaninglessness of the term ‘anti-semite’ in your mouth one can see why defining the term would be ‘a wierd thing to be interested in’ (best keep it as a catch-all phrase to describe all political opponents). Some of us are kind of concerned about these things though and think its a fairly serious matter. Hard to understand I know.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Poor Scargill. Leave him out of this, please I beg you.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
johng – you last long comment has overwhelmed me – I’m off to read some more books. The last comment to Izzy was at last some common ground for us so on that note of agreement I am signing off.
September 15th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Hey Nick,
Pleased about the common ground. And just because I know stuff (for various reasons) does’nt make me right. Hope to see you somewhere on the web soon.
September 15th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Hmm. I just don’t think being antisemite is such a big deal, as I think most people are guilty of antisemitsm. It’s not some sort of holy term, or ‘curse’.
Most people are racists too. Did you guys give Kanye West such a hard time about his comments regarding Bush? Do you think people that would spend a lot time arguing about what a ‘racist’ is in order to defend Bush might strike some as a bit creepy?
There is not a formal logic to determing who an antisemite is. Hitchens’ comments on Jewish matters tend to creep me out. Same with Galloway. Argue all you like.
September 15th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
If someone beats me up because I’m a Zionist, is that person an anti-Zionist or antisemite? Argue about that for a while…
September 15th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Well if they were anti-semites and anti-zionists then they would be both. Obviously.
For various reasons I know many Palestinians. I have met only one who I would class as an anti-semite. Unlike anti-semites not in that situation she was clearly an anti-semite because of her experiance of Zionism (she was from a part of Gaza which had suffered dreadfully). She started saying that she shivered whenever she saw a Jew (that is not in Gaza) and then worse. I argued and argued with her but there was no point. I don’t think this is the same as the creepy anti-semitism that exists here though. Indeed its probably best described simply as ethnic hatred.
Sadly though I suspect that its not uncommon. Most of the more politically active Palestinians I have met are not like this. And yes I know about creepiness and know the difference.
One can imagine a situation were someone would beat you up just because you were a Zionist were the motivation was not anti-semitism, but its very hard to imagine a situation were that would not be highly condemnable. Situations of more lethal political violence are the same. One can imagine really atrocious targetted violence even against civilians which is eminantly condemnable but which was not anti-semitic. One does’nt have to imagine it.
I like the formulation about being ‘creeped out’. Thats quite evocative. Here’s something from the other side of the fence. A muslim woman in Hijab was trying to express the same about people who said that they wanted to liberate her. She ended up saying ‘I just get the feeling your not really talking to me. Your talking about me’. It captured perfectly the intuitive thing one might feel listening to arguments which claim to be sympathetic. I know you will not agree with the examples.
But creeped out is a nice one.
September 15th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Izzy, are you a cartoon?
September 15th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Can I just say before I sign off that this is an alarmingly decent pro-war site. People seem decent even when I disagree with them and shock me by not confirming to my stereotypes. Jeez. Gotta go.
September 15th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Still trying to figure out this sentence. Does it mean what I think it means?
“One can imagine a situation were someone would beat you up just because you were a Zionist were the motivation was not anti-semitism, but its very hard to imagine a situation were that would not be highly condemnable”
September 15th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
“Izzy, are you a cartoon?”
Don’t get it.
September 15th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
A few reasons to think Hitchens is a creep.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/dance-hitchens-dance_b_1707.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010219/hitchens
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/press/shahak.htm
(background for above) http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859842844/qid=1124724408/sr=8-4/ref=pd_bbs_4/104-0039037-6911970?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://slate.msn.com/id/2125225/
Yuck!
September 15th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Sorry it means that its possible for someone to beat you up for being a zionist who is not an anti-semite but it would be something that should be condemned (unless perhaps your being a zionist had led you to physically attack someone who then hit you back: or indeed there was a scuffle situation in which both you as a Zionist and the person who was an anti-Zionist were both equally involved: not entirely unimaginable in the real world). The reason I put it like that was because I wanted to make it clear that just because I say something (might) not be anti-semitic would’nt mean I would say it was ok.
September 15th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
“Hitchens was terrible. He stammered and mumbled his way through the debate.” He did? All I heard was an eloquent and forceful demolition of the hard-left’s no.1 rabble-rouser. I think you mis-interpret ironic silences and Pinteresque pauses used as timing for effect. Either that or reasoned, cogent argument is simply too complex for you to handle.
September 15th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
“It took two British people to debate the Iraq War in America, but what was sadly lacking was a British moderator to keep the two apart long enough to give some form and meaning to the debate…â€Â
I’m not sure what the hell that is supposed to mean. Perhaps the writer is under the strange impression Americans aren’t debating this war.
Anyway, the reasoning used by either man last night would strike most Americans as silly. Hitchens with his warmed over leftist Internationalism and Galloway with his bizarre leftist Anti-americanism are so far off the freakin’ American mainstream…
Simply, most Americans would be merely amused by these two clowns – few here take them seriously. Even the people who read Vanity Fair, live in NY and attend such debates.
for the record, i thought Galloway got the better of Hitch.
September 15th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Totally. Hitchens treated like a dinner party where he was arguing with his neighbour: poss a bit too laconic for my liking but powerful and understated. GG, on the other hand, dusted off his crazed demagogue act. I don’t think he’s like Hitler – I think he’s like Charlie Chaplin playing Hitler in the Great Dictator. He’s a buffoon. And the ‘devil’ line was the point at which he lost the plot.
September 15th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Hank,
The writer is under any strange impression but the style of political debating is fairly different in the UK and the US. Have you ever seen Prime Minister’s question time and compared it to Senators debating, or to the joke debates leading up to the Presidential election? Have you ever watched Newsnight on BBC2, or (more accessible) listened to the Today program on BBC Radio 4 and compared it to American moribund news shows?
Come on, fellow, lets not get all defensive. This writer is pro-American, as well he should be.
September 15th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Izzy: You do know that Hitchens is Jewish, don’t you?
September 16th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Just ask Lavalas supporters in Haiti who are getting slaughtered thanks to the kindly imposition of the Duvalierists if the US isn’t a rogue state. Ask the masses in Venezuala who only through their own brave willingness to restore their elected President overthrown in the US sponsored coup d’etat if the US isn’t a rogue state. Apologists for empire are a depraved lot.
September 16th, 2005 at 6:38 am
jqhines,
no, no, no. Thats moral equivilance man. Thats not allowed. You must not judge the US by the same standards you would any other country. On the other hand you must also avoid cultural relativism. This involves judging different cases with different standards. Its a tough balencing act dude, but you know, the logicians of the pro-war crowd have laid down the rules and you’ve got to stick to them.
(incidently beware charges of whataboutary. What you just did is whataboutary. When they say ‘but what about Darfur’ its not whataboutary. Its a rejection of cultural relativism used as an argument against moral equivilance. You’ve got to keep sharp with the pro-war logic. Its razer sharp and kills a lot of people).
George Bush is did philosophy not Business studies it turns out.
September 16th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Hank,
Antiwar.com has a good account which whilst backing Galloway makes the same critique as you do of the debate as a whole if your interested.
September 16th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Nick, this wasn’t a debate by two politicians, it was a debate by two celebrities (one who happens to be elected). We’ve plenty of that sort of debate in the US. In fact, i’ve seen much more focussed interesting debates on the old Crossfire show, which – trust me – isn’t saying a lot.
Allan, Hitchens is not jewish. He recently claimed to have discovered that his mom was ethnically jewish. But seeing as he was neither raised as a jew, or was exposed to jewish culture growing up (christ, his mother hid it from him) one can hardly say he’s a jew. My dad is jewish, i wasn’t raised as a jew, but was exposed to jewish culture, tradition and (lord help me) food since i was born. Still, i’d never claim to be a jew.
Johng, thanks, i’ll check that site.
September 16th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Hank,
this is the precise link. Its written from the point of view of a conservative anti-war position. The last bit though is interesting from your point of view (although obviously I don’t share it!):
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2367
September 16th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Just come back to this site after a break (again). Just wanted to echo what Johng said, actually, about being impressed with the level of civility and politeness on this site.
It makes a nice change. Pdberger, I’ll take back my accusations in regard to your comments being ‘low’. I still think that you’re completely wrong to make that particular comparison, but can see that there’s nothing ‘low’ or deliberately malicious about it. Between you and me (and the other readers) I don’t really like Galloway’s speaking style either, and I disagree with him on some fairly major issues, but I don’t think there is anything at all sinister about it.
Anyway, thanks again for the decency on display here.
September 16th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Got to admit he made the hair on the back of my neck stand up when I saw him in London after the Senate hearing. I guess I’m just impressionable that way. Lines of trade unionists ‘welcome back George, welcome back George’.
“I broke a few laws in Washington. I lit up a Cuban Havana cigar on the steps and just blew the smoke into the senate…and did’nt we just blow them away?”
The place just went completely apeshit. So did I. But that was a room packed with Trade Unionists and Labour Movement people (note the ‘we’). I think at these kinds of fests the atmosphere is very different. In the US, despite the presence of supporters, I think he feels on enemy territory. As in a sense he is. And I think that means the style presents itself differently and the meaning changes to.
I don’t think the 9/11 remarks were a demogogic mistake. I think he felt he had to say them. We’ve seen him do that here to (especially after the London bombings). One of the reasons he’s become a figure is that despite the flash he thinks long term. Its an unfamiliar thing with national political figures these days.
Over here when we see him over there, he does’nt come across as someone who is a rabble rouser. He comes across almost suicidal. Many of his supporters here in Britain were very frightened for him. And I don’t think that was amateur dramatics either.
Just a personal impression not an argument from a deeply biased individual.
September 16th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
johng, thanks for that link. An amusing site, with some of my favorite writers. That Justin Ramando is a bit paranoid, but fun stuff. thanks again, it’s bookmarked.
Note, there’s a link on that site to an article about a recent debate between David Corn and Rich Lowry. See? We yanks do debate the war. 1,000 people attended.
September 16th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
I listened to the debate this morning and I think Hitchens was the clear winner. Galloway’s staccato splutterings were excruciating on the ear and the content of his rants was unremittingly dull. I was hanging onto Hitchens every word.
September 16th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
“I was hanging onto Hitchens every word.”
Is this some of that infamous British irony that we Yanks cannot decipher? I hope so.
Hitchens 4 ways nations give up their sovereignty was complete nonsense.
September 16th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
I see Gary Younge called it the same as me in the pages of the Guardian today. I don’t agree with some of what he said, but thank god someone seems to have been left with the same impression as I was.
PS Thanks to all of you for your comments on this so far. It really makes blogging worthwhile.
September 17th, 2005 at 12:10 am
Perhaps I got a bit carried away with ‘I was hanging onto Hitchens every word’ but I couldn’t wait for him to speak again after listening to Galloway for more than 30 seconds.
I was looking for entertainment not education, and I’m glad I was as I certainly didn’t learn anything from the debate.
September 17th, 2005 at 5:59 am
Is this a split between people who attend dinner parties and people who attend mass meetings? I think we should be told.
PS Hank thanks for the reference I’ll check it out…
PPS Sorry for the above. Us Brits are obsessed with class. But then both of them are Brits. And class will out you know.
September 17th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
It’s English people, not Brits (a different thing) who are obsessed with class. GG, a Scot first and foremost, couldn’t give a monkeys about class and that is one reason he treats Hitchens(who as an Englishman in NY, does) with the contempt he deserves. This blog exchange is the kind of slapstick which most Iraq War sites fed by Americans degenerate into. GG won every round on both rhetoric and substance. His speech to the American Senators in response to their half-baked accusations, parroted by Hitchens, was the consummate refutation of the Iraq catastrophe and should have been made by someone, anyone, in the Democratic Party. They are a disgrace not to be raging against what is happening in their names. For the most articulate voice against the indefensible to be a guy from Dundee sums up the America of 2005. You Americans, all of you, should be squirming.
September 17th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Erm, Tony.
1. All of the comments on this post, to the best of my knowledge, were made by Brits NOT Americans.
2. This is not an “Iraq War site.” It’s my own personal weblog. If you took the time to look around, you would see that.
3. In case you hadn’t noticed, the anti-War movement in America is pretty vocal. Thankfully, the pro-war camp that Galloway leads (pro-insurgency, that is) is pretty small over here.
4. That “articulate voice” from Dundee is a disgrace to his country, my country, and, I assume, your country.
5. It is you, sir, who should be squirming.
September 17th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
pd,
You’re right about one thing-I didn’t notice it was your site since it wasn’t worth looking around. It is very clear, however that the blogs are not all from what you erroneously call Brits. My country is not your country and neither I nor George G have anything to be ashamed of, at least in this context. Good luck with your continued toadying to your American hosts – both they and you (and your buddy Chris Hitchens) will need all the luck you can get. Genuine and sincere good luck to Cindy Sheehan the only American, as far as I can see, who has had the balls and acumen to register some sanity on Iraq in the MS American media. Thank God we don’t have to rely on the view from the Green Zone of Fox News, CH, you and your in-house bloggers on your very own site(well done on that one) for the facts about Iraq.
September 17th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Thanks TONY. You are a true gent. Please feel free to stop by here again in the future. pdb.
September 18th, 2005 at 6:44 am
Thanks, pdb. I won’t, but happy toadying in NYC, anyway.
PS An Englishman in New York was a naff song as well.
September 18th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Tony, Don’t want to break the united front but I think our George has a fair bit to say about Class actually (by which is’nt meant Frank Sinatra, Tina Turner or such like). And I think people know about Class in Scotland as well. Class should not be confused with snobbery, and once this is understood, its fairly obvious that the US is one of the most Class ridden societies in the world (an ideology of individualism and self-improvement being a compliment rather then in contradiction with the realities of Class in a Capitalist society). So ends the sermon.
September 18th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Along with just about everything else in your review you were wrong about the book signing queues. Far from “a brief and unpopular book signing”, according to Andrew Anthony in the Observer:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1572389,00.html
“A post-event book signing was convened and it was noticeable that the queue was almost twice as long to see Hitchens.”
September 18th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
DC, Granted I may have been wrong about the book signing (although in my defence I was trying to use the signings as a metaphor for how well I thought the two speakers performed on the night—Love, Poverty and War is one of the best books I have read this year).
But this is a matter of opinion and, as I have already pointed out in comment 76, I am not alone. Gary Younge gave Galloway victory on points in the Observer’s sister paper, the Guardian.
September 19th, 2005 at 11:12 am
TONY, of course that’s complete nonsense that no Democratic senators spoke up against the war. Senator Byrd, for example, during the lead up to war spoke out fiercely against the war and without the snideness of Mr Galloway. Here’s some examples.
“My views, by now, are well known. I believe this coming war is a grave mistake, not because Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be disarmed or driven from power, not because some of our allies object to war, but because Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States.â€Â
“We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America’s image around the globe.â€Â
I’m not sure what the Scot/English debate is all about exactly, but you seem to imply that Scotland is somehow not responsible for the war. Last I checked Scotland is as much part of the UK as New York is part of the US. (For the record, New York didn’t support Bush). Come to think of it, isn’t Blair from Scotland? Anyway, I’ll leave that for you Brits to figure out.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Hank.
I didn’t mention Democratic Senators at all. But I hope you would admit that they are not exactly deafening the world with their condemnations. Even Hilary Clinton is keeping her powder dry, presumably for a broadside when she considers the time right. The time was right a couple of years ago. The muted response by Democrats to the criminal incompetence of the Katrina relief effort tells a story of its own as well.
As for the Scottish/English debate – Blair went to school in Scotland. He is NOT Scottish I am glad to say. You could count the people in Scotland who support the occupation in Iraq on the fingers of one hand. The UK Government is fighting this war
against the wishes of Scotland, and the UK population as a whole, to judge by all the polls. Come to think of it – isn’t that exactly the position in the U.S.?
Best Regards From Caledonia
September 19th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
OK, OK,
According to the smartarses round here it seems he was born in Edinburgh. Anyway people from Edinburgh, whilst strictly speaking Scottish by birth, are English by disposition. I’m sure TB was stolen away by Druids and witches when he was a day old and they turned him into what he is today, in all its ghastliness.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Here’s a good indication of how ‘Scottish’ Blair is:
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1959662005
September 19th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
I thought Hitchens won on points, if only because he had something to say about Iraq and its peoples. Galloway had virtually nothing to say about Iraq or its peoples. Hitchens shot himself in the foot over N.O. But Galloway made it clear he supported the fascistic “resitance”: why doesn’t the mainstream media make more of that? And why isn’y the liberal/left upset by Galloway’s pro-fascism and anti-semitism? I was glad to see that some leftists leafleted against Galloway before this debate, exposing his worship of Saddam and other fascists. The principled left should continue to go after this red-brown stalino-fascist.
September 19th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Good piece on the debate. But not sure what you mean by this…
“…his accusations that Britain and America sent Islamists to Afghanistan…”
Presumably Galloway is referring to the guidance, finance, arms, and training given by Pentagon / CIA during 1979-1989. These are not accusations, it is well documented, is it not? In fact Galloway is entirely correct, Foreign Islamists were encouraged to enter Afghanistan by the CIA. No more clearly shown by the presence of the muhajadeen recruitment / finance base in New York (Alkifah Refugee Centre).
September 20th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Leitzen, in answer to your question, here is the relevant extract from the transcript…
Now, I’m no expert on the Afghan War, but from my limited reading on the subject, the US did not send Arab Afghans to Afghanistan in the 1980s. The Arab fighters sent themselves, and were supported by countries like Saudi Arabia and millionaires like Osama Bin Laden. Yes, the Americans cynically funneled aid to the Afghan Mujahideen via Pakistan to embroil the USSR in their own Vietnam. And yes, that money often went to the wrong sections of the Mujahideen, for example funding men like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar instead of Ahmed Shah Massoud. (And let’s not forget that the people the Mujahideen were fighting, the Communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, were themselves guilty of torturing and murdering thousands of Afghans.) But Galloway seems to be tying history in knots in order to arrive at a simplistic conclusion—the crowning turd of which is the link with Osama bin Laden, who as a millionaire Saudi fighter needed and received no money from the Americans. If Peter Bergen’s Holy War Inc is to be believed, Bin Laden was like a mini-state all of his own, bringing in weapons and money and training his own fighters. America has vehemently denied that any of its money went to foreign fighters in Afghanistan, a claim I find hard to believe considering they lost some control over it by channeling it via Pakistan. However, Osama Bin Laden’s rise to prominence had very little, if anything, to do with US funding. Ironically, the only thing the two have in common is that they were fighting on the same side.
September 20th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
I think Hitchens won the debate: if only because he had something to sy about iraq and its peoples: Galloway, as usual, couldn’t give a toss about the peples of Iraq. he’s only concerned abour his unprincipled lash-up with the SWP in Britain. Based upon anti-semitism, hatred of the US and “my enemy’s enemy..” But not one iota of concern for the peoples of Iraq.
September 21st, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Ah Jim Denham I presume. Slow Day?
Steve Cooley’s book on Afghanistan and the operation to send fundementalists there (which involved not just the US and assorted Arab regimes working in tandem but also, surprise, France) seems to me to fully support what Galloway says here.
These notes to a lecture given by Charles Tripp a few years ago seem almost extraordinarily prescient when it comes to whats happening today:
http://www.casi.org.uk/analysis/2004/msg00096.html
September 21st, 2005 at 1:00 pm
Responding to your answer; You agree, of course that the US did indeed channel funds to the Mujahadeen. American denials re: funding of foreign fighters are not only hard to believe, but are clearly untrue. Baring in mind that records of Abdullah Azzam’s many visits to the US are there for all to see.
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2064385
There remains VCR footage available of Azzam speaking to groups of American policy makers in NY if one continues to doubt this.
It was Azzam that also recruited Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zahawiri, they proceeded to work under his tutelage.
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=388
Al-Zahawiri’s recruitment in Afghanistan followed his surprise release from an Egyptian jail. (He was incarcerated for his role in the assassination of US stooge Anwar Sadat).
Al-Zahawiri’s release came after US assertive influence in the region. As stated by Milton Beardon CIA Field Officer, Afghanistan, 1985-89, “Very quietly, most of the governments in the Middle East, the Arab governments, began to empty their prisons of their bad guys and send them off to the jihad”.
Even if you find Galloway’s statement a little simplistic, that “The Arab Afghans who were sent by the American administration to Afghanistan in the 1980s became al-Qaeda in the 1990s” It is certainly not a spurious accusation. Jihadists were released, supported and encouraged to fight in Afghanistan by the US.
January 9th, 2006 at 10:02 am
[...] And who is there to parry George’s arguments? If George can perform well against Christopher Hitchens he’s not going to have much trouble jousting with the likes of Michael Barrymore and Jodie Marsh. [...]