Jump to content

Saturday 27th April 2024:  kick-off 3pm

Scottish Premiership - Aberdeen v Motherwell

🔴⚪️ Come on you Reds! ⚪🔴

Faces you'd like to punch


Kowalski

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

he is a twat but the way he dealt with that US senate hearing was truly magical.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3VHAco8y18&feature=related

 

Also check out his dealings with some of the Hun retards who call his show on TalkSport:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExABpDCaepY - "Bomb ra lot a rum!"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVnsvSDF4Y4

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also check out his dealings with some of the Hun retards who call his show on TalkSport:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExABpDCaepY - "Bomb ra lot a rum!"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVnsvSDF4Y4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aye remember listing to that before, quite funny.

 

But then I see interviews like this one:

 

 

I'm not even going to get into a debate about whether his comments are right or wrong, but rather the way in which he speaks to her. Total knob-end.

 

Sweetchuck - haven't been to Glasgow airport in a long time hehe! I guess you're not in the loathe him camp - or am I mistaken?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye remember listing to that before, quite funny.

 

But then I see interviews like this one:

 

 

I'm not even going to get into a debate about whether his comments are right or wrong, but rather the way in which he speaks to her. Total knob-end.

 

Sweetchuck - haven't been to Glasgow airport in a long time hehe! I guess you're not in the loathe him camp - or am I mistaken?

 

;D

 

He does come across very aggressively sometimes, particularly on issues like Israel/Hizbollah/Hamas etc. The way I see it, the likes of Sky News seriously need to be taken down a peg or two, and newscasters should be capable of handling difficult guests like that. Unfortunately, the presenters on Sky News are all too often selected on the basis of the way they look and talk, and not on the basis of being able to engage with stories or guests in a meaningful way. That's not to excuse his approach, but the way in which people respond to him often makes it look much worse than it actually is.

 

So no, I'm certainly not in the 'loathe him' camp - I have a lot of time for him, even if I disagree strongly with some of his views.

 

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He does come across very aggressively sometimes, particularly on issues like Israel/Hizbollah/Hamas etc. The way I see it, the likes of Sky News seriously need to be taken down a peg or two, and newscasters should be capable of handling difficult guests like that. Unfortunately, the presenters on Sky News are all too often selected on the basis of the way they look and talk, and not on the basis of being able to engage with stories or guests in a meaningful way. That's not to excuse his approach, but the way in which people respond to him often makes it look much worse than it actually is.

 

So no, I'm certainly not in the 'loathe him' camp - I have a lot of time for him, even if I disagree strongly with some of his views.

 

:thumbsup:

 

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no, I'm certainly not in the 'loathe him' camp - I have a lot of time for him, even if I disagree strongly with some of his views.

 

:thumbsup:

 

"I salute your courage' date=' your strength, your indefatigability."[/i']

 

What he said to Saddam Hussein

 

:wanker:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he said to Saddam Hussein

 

:wanker:

 

What, you mean the dictator that we put in place, funded, supplied weapons to, and then turned on as soon as our oil supplies were threatened? In any case, Galloway was talking about the Iraqi people, not Saddam Hussein himself.

 

Galloway was the only MP protesting against Hussein's regime back in the 1980s when we were propping him up, so your quote is hardly a fair representation of his character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, you mean the dictator that we put in place, funded, supplied weapons to, and then turned on as soon as our oil supplies were threatened? In any case, Galloway was talking about the Iraqi people, not Saddam Hussein himself.

 

Galloway was the only MP protesting against Hussein's regime back in the 1980s when we were propping him up, so your quote is hardly a fair representation of his character.

 

I could understand your feelings up to this point. However, the full quote was:

 

Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem].

 

The fact that he used the word 'Sir' seems to me to be a direct reference to Saddam Hussein. Had he said: I salute the courage of your people etc... then I could have maybe believed this. I know he has stated that isn't what he meant, but certainly if someone said that to me, I would assume he was talking to me and not the 800 odd DonsTalk members.  ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better than "here is some weapons saddam. have some fun with the iranians we'll be back soon to fuck you over depsite you being our pal"

 

Aye, because we fucked over Saddam.  Nice chap he was...  :-\

 

What, you mean the dictator that we put in place, funded, supplied weapons to, and then turned on as soon as our oil supplies were threatened? In any case, Galloway was talking about the Iraqi people, not Saddam Hussein himself.

 

:lolabove:

 

Galloway was the only MP protesting against Hussein's regime back in the 1980s when we were propping him up, so your quote is hardly a fair representation of his character.

 

I think it's a fair representation of a man who does, and says, anything to get himself in the media spotlight.  The guy's a cretin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found it a bit of a strange one for someone with such left wing tendencies.  Apparently though the reason he did it was because he was trying to get medical aid into the country and saddam decided to grant him an audience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lolabove:

 

???

 

[quote author=??? link=topic=4948.msg69889#msg69889 date=1214834941]

I think it's a fair representation of a man who does, and says, anything to get himself in the media spotlight.  The guy's a cretin.

 

You may not like him, but he's far from a cretin.

 

I always found it a bit of a strange one for someone with such left wing tendencies.  Apparently though the reason he did it was because he was trying to get medical aid into the country and saddam decided to grant him an audience. 

 

Saddam actually liked to think of himself as a progressive socialist: there's probably a bit of a link in there somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with him in that article.

 

Blair was hugely complicit in the most shameless political/military farce since Vietnam, sending hundreds of UK soldiers and over a million Iraqis/Afghans to an unnecessary death, all for the sake of appeasing Bush and his own misguided religious beliefs. If there is any justice in the world whatsoever, he should suffer for that.

 

Does that make me a cretin?

 

Anyway, I don't want to get drawn into a debate about the rights and wrongs of Galloway. As I've already said, I disagree strongly with a great many things he's said and done, but it's seriously wide of the mark to call him a cretin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with him in that article.

 

Blair was hugely complicit in the most shameless political/military farce since Vietnam, sending hundreds of UK soldiers and over a million Iraqis/Afghans to an unnecessary death, all for the sake of appeasing Bush and his own misguided religious beliefs. If there is any justice in the world whatsoever, he should suffer for that.

 

Saddam had to go, although I do agree they went about it the wrong way.  In that article, Galloway is basically condoning suicide bombers.  Regardless of how you interpret what he's said, that's a ridiculous thing to say.

 

Does that make me a cretin?

 

Okay  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam had to go, although I do agree they went about it the wrong way.  In that article, Galloway is basically condoning suicide bombers.  Regardless of how you interpret what he's said, that's a ridiculous thing to say.

 

I don't think so. If somebody invaded my country and rebranded it as Bush & Blair Inc. in order to rape it of everything it had, murdered my countrymen indiscriminately, dismantled and tortured any organised resistance which existed and then had the brass balls to tell me they were only helping me, I could imagine being driven to some pretty horrendous lengths in response.

 

Every single one of the 1,000,000 Iraqis indiscriminately murdered since we invaded is likely to have an extremely angry family which is seeing no signs of freedom or liberation, but rather a country which is increasingly sectarian, increasingly impoverished thanks to the Yanks creaming off all their resources, and increasingly powerless to do anything to stop the very people who insult their intelligence by claiming they're only in their country to help them.

 

On that basis, I really don't see how anybody could feel any sympathy if Blair went KABOOM tomorrow, unless, that is, they quite like the idea of us going over to the Middle East and slaughtering a million or so Arabs indiscriminately.

 

Guerrilla warfare may not be pretty and it may not be fair, but remember that morality can be (dangerously) subjective in cases like this.

 

[quote author=??? link=topic=4948.msg69917#msg69917 date=1214840007]Okay  ;)

 

:finger:

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. If somebody invaded my country and rebranded it as Bush & Blair Inc. in order to rape it of everything it had, murdered my countrymen indiscriminately, dismantled and tortured any organised resistance which existed and then had the brass balls to tell me they were only helping me, I could imagine being driven to some pretty horrendous lengths in response.

 

Every single one of the 1,000,000 Iraqis indiscriminately murdered since we invaded is likely to have an extremely angry family which is seeing no signs of freedom or liberation, but rather a country which is increasingly sectarian, increasingly impoverished thanks to the Yanks creaming off all their resources, and increasingly powerless to do anything to stop the very people who insult their intelligence by claiming they're only in their country to help them.

 

Something had to be done about Saddam.  It was an almighty balls-up from the start, and by start I mean the first Gulf war.  Saddam was a f*cking lunatic and should've been removed at the very first opportunity.  As said already, they did it the wrong way, but I seriously think they underestimated the size of the job in hand in getting Iraq back into a decent state.  :-\

 

Condoning suicide bombers though.  :hammer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam was a f*cking lunatic and should've been removed at the very first opportunity.

 

Certainly threatened to which led to the Kurds revolting but as I seem to remember George snr chickened out.

 

pwned ;D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...