George Galloway comments on Christopher Hitchens

[ErikPaulsonFan]

I used to hate Galloway and, as a Jew, thought him to be an anti-Semite because of his fierce hatred of Israel.

I gave him a chance recently, and found him to be virulently opposed to anti-Semitism and simply an anti-Zionist. I've even heard him bash anti-Semites. My opinion changed; I respected him.

But now I hear him bash Hitchens (posthumously) for supporting George Bush. But Hitchens called Galloway out for supporting Assad; you know, the guy who's been killing thousands lately. Ha!

[terratrema]

"I suppose the warmongers who killed *a million souls* in Iraq were equally moved..."

Oh. A million?

Did the British and American troops murder a million Iraqis?

Is that in any way true, or is that just total over-exaggerating bullsh*t that destroys one's argument and makes a mockery of oneself?

(The answer is the latter.)

[johnbaptist15]

Great George Galloway . . . .He has the greatness of Great Britain in him . . . .

[FearTactician]

ding dong the witch is dead

[abujamal85]

Hahaha funny how Hitchens fanboys rant against every religious person when it seems they just replaced god with their allmighty hitchens. And just like believers they break in tears and explode with anger when somone disagrees with their holy father hitchens. And whats worse is the fact that most of hitchens fanboys know that the iraq war was illegal and simply wrong but they would never say it because they would disagree with their hero.. Hitchens was a warmonger and will be rememberd as one.

[CheckHooKz]

1million dead? Credulous.

[JoeStunner]

As much as I admired Hitchens forceful stance against the fairytale guff of religion, I think he was 100% wrong about Iraq, and far from the bastion of morality and virtue that many now claim him to be. However, the same can be said of the decidedly shady apologist for religious fanaticism, Mr. Galloway.

[miriitisw]

There is nothing wrong with using the word "Zionist" to describe Israel supporters. It is accurate, unlike using the meaningless term "anti-Semite" to describe opponents of Israel.

[terratrema]

@miriitisw

The only meaningless term banded about at the moment is "Islamophobe", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[miriitisw]

@terratrema I agree that "Islamophobe" is meaningless. But so is "anti-Semite".

[terratrema]

@miriitisw

Very well. I must say though, I don't very often see opponents of Israel being called "anti-Semites". That seems to be to be an incredibly rare occurrence, when you consider how widespread and virulent criticism of Israel is around all of Europe (and beyond).

But, any criticism of the excesses of Islam will undoubtedly lead to an accusation of "Islamophobia", which has become as stinging an insult as "racist", even though that makes no sense and is deeply sinister in nature

[scoutleaderdeed]

slugs turn into butterflies?



[emiguelmcruz]

what a sad litle man

[louiscfc93]

Hitchens will be remembered long after you pass Mr Galloway.

[TODB0AMER]

Can atheists sell their souls?

[FlyingDutchman65]

Shedding no tears for the sleezy and hypocrite clown Hitchens

[vavashroom]

Every time I here this man he sounds like a fanatical cleric. His hysterical ranting and ramblings are unbearable even if he is maiking valid points. His feeble parables appeal to the mass idiots who cheer this despot loving helmet. (he appeared on a UK reality TV show and pretended to be a cat).

[miriitisw]

So...it was funny for Christopher Hitchens to speak far more contemptuously about his deceased opponents (e.g. his popular attack on Jerry Falwell during a Hannity appearance), but when Galloway chose to speak like this about Hitchens' because of his relentless support for neoconservatism, the Hitchens defenders consider it to be "too low"!

[TheSobek]

@miriitisw I don't consider it to be too low, I consider him to be wrong. Falwell was an awful, loathsome person and Hitchens was not. Not hard to understand.

[miriitisw]

@TheSobek Falwell said 9/11 was a good thing. Hitchens spent a decade zealously promoting pointless wars in which millions of people died for no good reason, and thousands more were displaced. Neither of them are worthy of much praise.

[elsblaugranas]

As some ppl already stated, Hitch got it wrong on Iraq but right on religion (and vice-versa for Galloway). No doubt Hitch is the more sophisticated and knowledgeable of the two, though Galloway is the more charismatic and persuasive (due to his voice and emotive appeals). I'm a Hitch fan and am sad that he's dead, but I also respect a few of Galloway's positions. Bottom line: Galloway shouldn't have roasted the guy now that he's dead. Also Hitch was against all religions not just Islam.

[Goose993]

It's really difficult to listen to this horrible ranting for the full 8 minutes.

Hitchens' opposition to totalitarianism burned brightly throughout his life - though some of it he clearly misjudged (eg his support for the emerging Robert Mugabe).

Butterflies cannot morph from, or to, slugs (3mins 27 secs) - they come from caterpillars. I think George is confusing his origins with those of Christopher. Butterflies tend to do two things - inspire the poetic and die young. RIP Christopher.

[4Gil4]

@Goose993 I agree with your sentiments, just thought I should point out Hitch apologizes for supporting Mugabe in Hitch-22, he says it's one of his few regrets.

[Seigu007]

@Goose993 stfu, you dumb atheist. Just shoot yourself and return to nature.

[JoeStunner]

Hitchens was as right about religion as Galloway is right about Iraq. It's a shame these two were enemies.

[mrpoca0]

butthurt muslim convert is butthurt

[ExposingConservative]

Hitch was good for debating religion, but he was no match for Galloway on the Iraq War. There is no defending that disgusting atrocity.

[AtheistGallant]

Galloway destroyed Hitch. It's the warmongering that puts one off.

[GT45000]

George Galloway rules. Only bitter militant atheists will despise this

[13dachronic]

too bad hitchens died. He had to opportunity not die as a dumbass.

[Riiye]

Hitchens did not call his book "God is not great" to drive a dagger into Islam. The VAST majority of militant atheism is attacking Christianity; Hitchens did not want to conform to the iron fist of condemnation upon Christianity but then go all soft on Islam. He was attacking religion in general, that is why he did not name it "Our Father is Not in Heaven".

[3eemy]

@Riiye spot on , most atheists aim their attacks only at christianity ,hitch had the courage to criticize islam .

[baptsan]

Do not forget or think Hitchens would be better on Galloway!

-

They were enemies !

-

George clearly owned Christopher over Iraq, only crazy zionist think otherwise.

[MichaelTheOliver]

@baptsan Clearly? Show me where it's clear. It's not.

[4Gil4]

@baptsan You know that when you use the word 'Zionist', it makes people think you're an idiot

[nasratfatty]

Sometimes I feel like Galloway has some good points, but usually he just comes off as a rambling maniac. I'm more inclined to throw in with Hitchens...

[MrGilles1990]

How did Christopher Hitchens turn to the right?

[bistnenutte]

that was a bit low from galloway to talk shit about christopher. what a bitch!!!

[chrish12345]

on the other hand, having read most of it, I don't agree that his book was anti Islamic, in as much as it criticised lots of religions with an unbiased eye

[chrish12345]

so true George, as you say it doesn;t get much worse than definding that war

[ENGLISHDOGSOLDIER]

I've read Hitchins stuff and he's no worse or better than anyone else.

Who is George Galloway to say anyone is a good or bad writer?

George is a narcissist and self publicist convinced of his own greatness.

Oh by Butterflys do not meotmorphise back in slugs but Catterpillars this lads biology is well out as is his constant reference to God.

If God does exist George better buy fireproof underpants.

[nem700]

hitchens has blood on his hands; he should never be celebrated. im totally with george on this.

[pauliddon92]

Galloway conveniently forgets he is talking about a man who campaigned for intervention in Bosnia to save predominately Muslims as early as 1992 and was actually there and reporting on the impending tragedy and massacre.

All Galloway was doing back then was praising Saddam Hussein for his 'indefatigability' whilst Hitchens was simultaneously giving his solidarity to the Kurdish people and helping raise awareness of their struggle.

And what's with Galloways God given gifts mantra!?

[MrHarrylime79]

@pauliddon92 Look, 1992 is different from 2000 and beyond. Galloway parised Iraq and its people, NOT Saddam. This is a lie. Hitchens was a repugnant man whose hatred for religion got the better of him. He supported Bush while Galloway was proved to be right. Hitchens sold his soul and that is the long and short of it.

[pauliddon92]

@MrHarrylime79

Have you seen the actual video of him praising Saddam?

How could you possibly conflate that to Galloway praising Iraq and its people?

He's is doing the exact same thing today by ingratiating himself with the Iranian theocracy and sneering at and slandering the democratic forces there who on the pain of torture campaign for pluralism, tolerance and secularism.

In what regard was Galloway vindicated or 'proved to be right'?

Come on mate, talk to me here.

[badgeless]

@pauliddon92

If you don't like Galloway shaking hands and speaking nice things to Saddam you are probably equally disgusted with seeing the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands and smiling with Saddam. Rumsfeld met Saddam twice. Galloway met Saddam twice. Rumsfeld sold Saddam bombs. I don't know what Galloway did with Saddam except it does look like Galloway praised him. Which is worse? Praise or bombs?

[pauliddon92]

@badgeless

Lets put things in perspective - praising him was endorsement - arming him was part of Cold War realpolitik. The United States provided UH-1 helicopters and logistical support to the Iraqi Army when Iran was attempting to invade Iraq.

Wasn't a perfect policy, but in broader 20th century history was reminiscent to WWII when the US provided Stalin with GMC trucks for logistical purposes which were in turn later used to ferry prisoners to the gulags.

[badgeless]

@pauliddon92

"ingratiating himself with the Iranian theocracy and sneering at and slandering the democratic forces" Galloway, right or wrong, has never supported a theocracy over a democracy. If he did I don't know about it. Let us know where to find information on that support.

I would say Galloway has been vindicated because he said right from the beginning the war in Iraq was wrong. It's difficult for me to consider the outcome of Iraq's devastation as anything good.

[pauliddon92]

@badgeless

Well the simple fact is he supports the Iranian regime, which is a theocratic dictatorship.

Yes he opposed the war, nevertheless that doesn't prove anything, if Iraq had been let go ahead down the path it was heading it would have probably plunged into bitter sectarian violence and division and saw intervention from its neighbours and probably be partitioned and broken up as a result. There might not be an Iraq today if not for intervention.

[grazzhood71]

@pauliddon92 stupid warmonger

[MrHarrylime79]

@pauliddon92 I've seen the video and I've heard Galloway's explanation - I accept it. George Galloway said that the reasons for going to war were "a pack of lies" he has been vindicated especially from the Uk point of view - the sexed up dossier with the 45 minute claim was a lie as were the WMDs which didn't exist no matter how much people claim they may or may not have been there. I am not au fait with his relationship with Iran, so I'd rather not comment on that.

[pauliddon92]

@MrHarrylime79

I take it you also have no qualms with the fact that he has also in recent memory fawned on Uday Hussein, Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (ok you need not comment on him) and openly supports the most violent, fascistic fanatical Palestinian militants.

And casting aside the questionable grounds the war was waged on would you have supported a similar intervention on the grounds of simply removing Saddam Hussein?

[CommissarRed]

George's comments regarding Hitches book and Atheism is in poor form. So its title was similar to a Muslim saying and? Atheists don't like any religion and hes on record as being against all forms of fundamentalism in particular Islam, why should an Atheist restrict his criticisms to just one religious group? and the wishing mercy on his soul? Really George your sinking that low,aren't you the guy who usually says we should respect the beliefs of others?

[busby3141592]

I wonder if George has read Hitchens book - God is not Great frequently attacked Christianity - as did he attack it in debate (against Francis Collins for example) and on tv.