Remember George Galloway? Badly beaten in street assault in London

[superpatriotman]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/30/george-galloway-released-hospital-assault

A man has been charged with religiously aggravated assault after allegedly attacking George Galloway on a London street on Friday evening, police have said.

The Bradford West MP was released from hospital on Saturday morning having suffered a suspected broken jaw and rib as well as facial bruising. Neil Masterson, 39, has been accused of shouting about the Holocaust and attacking him.

The attack, it is claimed, was related to comments Galloway recently made about the conflict in Gaza. The MP was posing for pictures in Notting Hill in west London when the attack took place.

This guy was a hero around here during the Iraq war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. This should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Much as I despise Galloway, trying to silence him be beating him up is utterly unforgivable, and he should have all our support in hoping that the man who did it is convicted and punished.

[Nye Bevan]

8. Fully agree.

Galloway says a lot of stupid things but I defend his right to say them without being beaten up.

[sabrina 1]

36. I agree, but may I ask, why do you despise Galloway? Airc, he has been a consistent

voice in opposition to the Imperial Powers Foreign Invasions of countries where they have no business whatsoever. He vehemently opposed Bush/Cheney and was one of the few rational voices with the courage to speak out against that vicious war they started in Iraq.

He came here to the US and our right wing congressmembers THOUGHT they could 'get him'. I remember standing up and cheering as he WIPED THE FLOOR with them and I wished we had had some Dems who could put them so firmly in their places they were practically speechless.

Since when the 'Left' begin to despise pretty ALL of those who during those dreadful years that will go down in history as the turning point to the downward spiral of this country, were the courageous voices in the wilderness as even our own party did little to stop the criminals who took over this country.

I admire this man, he has courage which is in short supply these days. We see so little courage that we are accustomed now to weasel words rather than the strong statements people like Galloway made which should have been repeated by every person in this country who gave a damn about it. Instead all we get is weakness and the bad guys continue to control things.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. I think that he is a fool and a hypocrite.

I believe that he feels that the West in general and America in general are the source of all evil, and that anyone opposing them should be given the benefit of the doubt; I don't think he consciously thinks that, but I think he adopts positions based on that and then finds - often paper-thin - rationalisations for them. Yes, he was right on Iraq and Afganistant, but for the wrong reasons - blanket hatred of American/Western intervention and insufficient distaste for dictatorships, not a specific analysis of the issue in question.

Some specific examples:

*His assertion that the executed boyfriend of homosexual Iranian asylum seeker Mehdi Kazemi was executed for sex crimes rather than for being homosexual, and that the case of gay rights in Iran was being used by supporters of a war with Iran.

*His defence of Julian Assange against accusations of rape - he appears not to get that having sex with someone without their consent is not OK.

*His willingness to share a platform with Hamas. To Western audiences he's condemned them; it may be he meant it, but actions speak louder than words, and I guess it was probably just for political expediency.

*His description of the IRA's murder campaign as a war.

*His denial that Hamas was "a terrorist organisation" (in context, this wasn't quite as bad as it sounds, but it was still bad).

*I don't think his attitude to Israel is antisemitic per se - as a non-Israeli Jew, I don't imagine he'd have a problem with me - but I do think it crosses quite a long way across the line into bigotry on national grounds.

[Threedifferentones]

48. The difference between terrorism and war is basically a legal distinction.

When a state uses violence to force people to comply it is called war or policing. When a non-state actor does the same it is terrorism. So, when the Israelis kill thousands of Palestinians and terrify the remaining millions it is a "war." But, when the Palestinians kill a few Israelis it is terrorism, even if there is proof positive that large Israeli crowds are gathering on hillsides to watch the destruction in Gaza, apparently unafraid.

I don't know shit about Mr. Galloway, but for many of us this bias of war vs. terrorism is unethical and dishonest. The most terrifyingly violent and powerful groups on the planet are not terrorists, which somehow seems wrong to me. If George Galloway agrees with that, then I would say he is correct at least some of the time.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. I'm afraid I completely disagree with that - I think it's a very clear and obvious distinction.

It's arguably semantically possible for a campaign of terrorism to be part of prosecuting a war, but war and terrorism are two completely different things.

[Threedifferentones]

51. Disagree on what basis? Completely different?

A quick google of terrorism produces the following definition:

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Could you please explain to me how war is NOT the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political aims? Is that not what the Israelis are doing in Gaza? Is that not what we did to Saddam Hussein?

A quick google of war produces of the following defintion:A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Could you please explain to me how what the IRA or Hamas did/do is NOT a state of armed conflict between groups within a nation?

Terrorism and war are both the use of violence in pursuit of controlling land, wealth, and people. AKA the use of violence towards a political goal.

The difference is indeed semantic, though. If we support a violent, non-state group they are soldiers or rebels or freedom fighters. If we disapprove of a violent, non-state group then they are terrorists. Of course states use violence to terrorize dissenting groups into submission ALL THE TIME (ie Ferguson), but semantically they are not "terrorists."

Your line of thinking is thus utterly wrong, the line between terrorism and war is typically a legal distinction, not an ethical one, and the line between the two can be very blurry.

[11cents]

2. Enthusiastic supporter of Syrian mass-murderer Assad

Employed by violently antisemitic "Press TV." Tool of reactionary Putin regime. Tool of anyone who will pay. A malign buffoon.

Of course he shouldn't have been beaten, and this act is being widely condemned by his most tenacious foes. But you have to be either an idiot, lacking any ethical compass, or an outright racist to regard him as a hero.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Anything that comes before a "but" is worthless.

You may have to be either an idiot, lacking any ethical compass, or an outright racist to regard him as a hero. But of course he shouldn't have been beaten, and this act must be widely condemned by his most tenacious foes.

[eridani]

21. Why nof support Assad? Syrian minorities were vastly better off before the Islamists--

--tore the place apart. Every removal of a secular dictator in the ME has meant destruction of minorities and institution of a permanent war of each against all, which women and children always lose.

[11cents]

27. Apologetics for a regime that's slaughtered hundreds of thousands in order to hold on to power

...is disgusting.

[eridani]

28. The conflict was started by Islamists

Christians to Beirut! Alawites to the grave! Assad is their only defense.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Yes, he's a prat; but that is of course no excuse for violent assault!

[sabrina 1]

37. Your post is so full of 'wrong' I don't know where to start. He is not an 'enthusiastic supporter'

of Assad, anymore than we on the Left, including Galloway, were ever 'enthusiastic supporters' of Saddam but that was the right wing short cut to try to mischaracterize those of us who opposed our invasions of these countries.

He will speak wherever he can and so long as our own TOTALLY CONTROLLED CORPORATE MEDIA refuses to allow voices from the Left to speak, he is correct to take advantage of any air time made available to him. And so is every other person who is telling the truth about what is going on in this country and in the former Empire he is a citizen of and knows its bloody history only too well.

We need thousands more Galloways who have the guts to challenge those who have destroyed several countries and their people so far and show no sign of tiring of the bloodshed, if it is EVER to stop.

[oberliner]

52. You have no idea what you are talking about here

He most definitively has been an enthusiastic supporter of Assad for many years. "The last bastion of Arab dignity" was a phrase he used to describe the Assad regime.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

3. He's under the DU bus along with all the other people DU used to admire. nt

[geek tragedy]

4. He was never worthy of admiration.

Name a horrible, despotic anti-US/UK regime, and you can find a quote from him praising them.

He's a professional troll.

See, e.g.,

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/3050682

"We have to examine exactly who is threatening whom," he said, first reported by the Daily Caller. "Because one of the things I learnt on my two visits to North Korea, is that this is an extraordinarily cohesive political entity and society.

"They are courageously refusing to bow the knee to big power diktat and domination."

He added the caveat that he "does not agree with the North Korean system. I've been there, I've seen it up close and personal.

"But there have been achievements in North Korea, they have a satellite circling the earth. They have a nuclear power industry, even though they suspended it on false promises from President Clinton and US statesmen.

"They have a cohesive, pristine actually, innocent culture, a culture not penetrated by globalisation and Western mores.

He accused South Korea of being a "puppet state" of the US, adding: "I am much more afraid of the United States of America and so are most people in the world.

"North Korea has no intention to harm any of us. North Korea’s problem is with South Korea.

"South Korea exists because America invaded Korea, killed millions of people, divided the country and continues to garrison South Korea with military bases, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapon.”

"I believe that this is a United States trumped up little crisis,” he said. “They have pushed and pushed North Korea into a corner."

That said, politically motivated violence is abhorrent and this is severely disturbing.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

5. While that may be true, he was a hero to most here at one point. nt

[geek tragedy]

6. DU tends to pick heroes based on common

enemies rather than intrinsic merit.

Sometimes clarity happens.

[11cents]

10. Well put

Better than my wordier response.

[superpatriotman]

12. "George Galloway is my hero."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3706616

A trip down bad memory lane.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

14. Pretty much. I'm not a Galloway fan and never was all that particularly interested in him. nt

[11cents]

9. Then that's a testament to flawed humanity here, not to his virtues

Someone should not be declared an eternal and unalloyed "hero" because he does one thing that looks good in one particular context. Unless you have a penchant for being a dupe, you have to pay attention to motive, character, and the broader pattern of his career.

[freshwest]

20. The high point for me about him was when he took down the smug Senate Republicans on Iraq.

I thought I was going to lose my mind in those days. Gosh, I despised them. Asto whether he is or was right or wrong about other things and he's got in trouble before, that was a great encouragement to us during that era.

It was really good, although I am tired of the tough guy, cursing form of politics. It's red meat for the masses, makes future enemies and thus is unsustainable for the long haul.

I don't know who or why this guy beat him up. That guy needs a mental evaluation. These stories tantalize, don't tell much. It says something about religion and Israel, so they seem to be claiming the guy was either a religious or a political extremist.

He's just a criminal and they need to look up his record to see what else he has done. Not right to beat the old guy up. Guess this will be part of the future, as it in the past. Like the Southerner who beat the abolitionist nearly to death in the Senate before the Civil War.

[eridani]

22. At that time, someone from Britain commented that Galloway

--was a species of politician that had no native predators in the US.

[freshwest]

23. Good one. Nationality can protect one. But he had trouble in the UK for a while.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

30. Hi freshwest! :) I remember it well. nt

[sabrina 1]

38. And what is incorrect about those statements? We WERE in Korea, in Vietnam, in Iraq, in

Afghanistan, in South America and wherever we have been things have only gotten worse, other than WW11.

Clinton more or less shared Galloway's pov re Korea and was in the process of trying to unite North and South. IT WAS BUSH who blew that policy away.

I guess if you agree with Bush policies, you won't like Galloway. I do not, I have the utmost respect for his ability and courage to take down our very own Republicans right here in Congress when they tried to silence him and to say what so many others THINK but don't have the courage to say.

[zappaman]

7. The BFEE is once again trying to silence him.

They have a long reach.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

13. BFEE? Pfffft...conspiracy theory much? nt

[NuclearDem]

29. I'm pretty sure that comment was made as a joke.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Not everything is to do with the BFEE...

if it were, there are far more influential people than Galloway for them to attack.

It seems to be the act of a somewhat unbalanced Brit. The prime suspect has a Facebook page, which suggests that he supports both the Tories and a much further-Right, strongly Islamophobic group called Britain First; and is also, unusually for a Brit, a Christian Zionist: he is a Catholic, who supports Hagee Ministries as well as various other strongly pro-Israel organizations.

[zappaman]

32. Wrong.

[JEB]

15. I remember his speaking out,

standing up to the lying neocons and their rush to war. Many of our "heroes" remained silent or even abetted neocon crimes.

[KoKo]

16. Yes...and he spoke out on Gaza recently. He's under the bus, here.

That's very sad that he would be attacked like that.

He is an eloquent speaker. I doubt this attack will keep him from speaking out in the future.

[JEB]

17. Very courageous.

We could use a lot more like him. We have enough weak kneed corporate stooges.

[tritsofme]

19. “All the papers seem to imply that you get executed in Iran for being gay. That’s not true.”

Matthew Wright: His boyfriend was hung though, wasn’t he?

George Galloway: Yes, but nor being gay. For uh, committing sex crimes, uh, against young men.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/03/14/galloway-claims-iran-executes-sex-offenders-not-gays/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/mar/26/gallowaysiranianpropaganda

Oh how such an eloquent defender of the Iranian regime he is. I think Galloway is a disgrace, obviously not in any way justified to assault him.

[sabrina 1]

39. Yes, he has always had the courage to speak the truth. I remember what he did to

Republicans in Congress when they thought they were any match for his intellect and ability with words. He wiped the floor with them, left them literally open mouthed. Airc, we cheered that day.

HE hasn't changed, but it appears some on the Left either changed or were awfully quiet during the Bush years.

[malaise]

18. I hope they find the culprit(s)

This is madness. I still like Galloway - he's as anti-establishment as they come.
He comments re Gaza were spot on.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. "I still like Galloway."

Not surprised in the least.

[sabrina 1]

40. I still like him and see no reason to have changed my mind from the Bush years when he

was a hero to the Left. He still is actually.

[LeftishBrit]

25. A man has now been formally charged

A man has been charged with religiously-aggravated assault after MP George Galloway was attacked in a west London street....


Neil Masterson, 39, of Camden Hill, will appear at Hammersmith Magistrates Court on Monday.

He has also been charged with common assault against a man in his 40s who came to the victim's aid, police said.

Mr Galloway was posing for pictures with people in the west London street when a man "leapt on him and started punching him", a spokesman for the MP said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28998607

[reorg]

33. I don't understand how religion comes into this

"religiously aggravated"? If Galloway was attacked for his very public stance, it has little to do with "religion".

[The Great Escape]

43. Isn't Galloway Catholic?

Perhaps that was what the"religious aggravation" was.

[reorg]

44. so, if somebody hits you and you're a Catholic

the assault is "religiously aggravated"?

Still don't get it. Galloway doesn't speak about his religion in public and says it's nobody's business what he believes, when interviewers ask him this question.

[The Great Escape]

45. Merely Suggesting It Was Sectarian In Nature

I might be off base though.

[LeftishBrit]

46. My guess, given the expressed views of the suspect...

is that Islamophobia is thought to have played a part, because Galloway is seen as pro-Muslim, and the suspect is explicitly anti-Muslim, and may have used this as a reason for the attack. Also, it has sometimes been claimed that Galloway converted to Islam when he married a Muslim wife (he has been married four times), though this is probably not true.

In any case, whatever the motivation, beating up people on the street so that they need hospital treatment, is clearly a serious offence.

[Rhinodawg]

34. I'm against this attack..

But I certainly understand why it happened.

[reorg]

35. George Galloway is a great speaker

and he speaks for a principled and unapologetic Left. That's why he is famous and why he is in Parliament again, even after Bush's poodle kicked him out of the Labour Party for his vocal opposition against the invasion of Iraq.

It is probably not the first time that some crazed nutcase has physically attacked him and it won't be the last. Such rabble act in the belief they are on a mission, and no doubt they do enjoy some support. Just waiting to hear somebody say "he had it coming" ...

[sabrina 1]

41. He's definitely a leftie. No surprise why some right wing nut would attack him.

[oberliner]

53. He is a lot of things but a leftie is not one of them

He speaks glowingly of some of the most right wing regimes around the world.

[cpwm17]

54. I'm not arguing, but do you have any links?

What I've seen him say is spot on the truth, but that is all I know of him.

[sabrina 1]

55. Which ones? I recall him slamming most of the Right Wing dictatorships, many of them

allies of the West. So which ones has he spoken glowingly about?

[elias49]

50. I always respected Galloway

a shame he's suddenly persona non grata here. He has more 'balls' than a hundred DUers sitting at keyboards.