The interim administration would most certainly maintain Britain's involvement in the war. Furthermore, the atrocity of assassinating the Prime Minister would likely lead to Britain taking a harder line on the war in Iraq rather than a softer one. There is every reason to believe that the assassination of Blair at the hands of a suicide bomber would actually result in more Iraqi deaths in the long run, not fewer. All other considerations aside, for this reason alone, such an act would be immoral.
George Galloway is not only a moral midget; he's also a fantastic hypocrite. His association with, and admiration for, Saddam Hussein is well documented. Does Galloway also maintain that his Baathist friend deserves assassination? Certainly all of the qualities he attributes to Blair are present in Saddam in abundant quantities. No matter. Galloway is also close with Fidel Castro, whom he called a "lion" in the midst of political "monkeys" only yesterday, before sharing a misty-eyed embrace with El Hefe.
Apparently abysmal human rights records and hands drenched with the blood of innocents only matter when the guilty party is one of Galloway's political enemies. Otherwise, it's just another day spent curled up at the master's feet.
Article comments
1 - Phillip Winn
THis boggles the mind! Thanks for the report.
2 - Arch Conservative
Galloway is the somewhat more legitimate, but not really, british Cindy Sheehan.
3 - Pete Blackwell
At least Sheehan has the legitimate grief of losing her son. I'd say Galloway is worse because his wingnuttery can't be explained like Cindy's can. I don't like her politics at all, but I can at least feel sorry for her and her loss.
4 - jamal
should we not consider the fact that Blair & Co has had no qualms in justifying the deaths of thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention it’s other covert, supported or pending conflicts? And yes, there have been reports that innocents have been targeted aswell as predominantly civilian areas. So Blair is guilty of murder, not to mention supporting the illegal detention and torture of detainees, many who have never been charged.
Therefore, is it not fair to question whether “the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber, if there were no other casualties, be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”
Galloway replies; “Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did.”
My opinion is that this is a fair and rational response to a question that should be asked. The only difference Tony Blair has to a suicide bomber, is that he possesses a permit to bury and a licence to kill. Therefore, is it not correct to argue that we must condemn either both or neither?
5 - NR Davis
This proves that unanimity is not present within the antiwar community.
Galloway is correct about this: "It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did."
Problem is, he leaves out the fact that what Blair did was IMMORAL. And if Blair's actions are not justified (which I would think would be Galloway's position), so would an assassination of Bush's poodle.
I don't agree with Blair and will cheer the day he and Cherie leave Downing St, but just as those killed in Iraq didn't deserve their fates, he does NOT deserve to be killed. It's irresponsible, IMO (though he has the right), for Galloway to use the public stage to say something so hideous, something that could give some wacko a dangerous idea.
6 - Cidel
Galloway does not claim it would be 'morally justified', but it would be 'morally equivalent'. I am surprised you overlooked something so obvious.