George Galloway Vs. Geert Wilders Again

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant the people who wish to engage me in argument can be.

If people disagree with my views and the premise of this site, then that is their right, and I welcome the variation of opinion if they wish to debate me using logic, facts and rationality.

They rarely do, however; they seem to prefer name calling, nonsensical insults and a good, healthy does of mind-bending double standards.

On a recent YouTube video of George Galloway addressing a Canadian audience via video link after being banned from the country, I left the following critical but good natured comment:

thelambethwalkSE11
Freedom of speech is a funny thing - I don't recall Mr Galloway being overly concerned when Dutch MP Geert Wilders was banned from Britain under threat of Muslim violence.
He supported the ban, in fact.
What's that old saying about every action having a reaction...?

I then received several highly critical replies, the worst from a Hamas and Hezbollah supporter called Assy84.

He could not seem to grasp the fact that whilst he is free to disagree with Wilders, calling the man names does not automatically render his points invalid or countered.

He also could not grasp the fact that whilst Wilders was banned from Britain for his views and the potential actions of others, Galloway was banned from Canada for his actions, namely giving quite a lot of money and hugs to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Maybe this person is too fringe to worry about, but the cyclical nature of the argument and the blatant, unashamed double standards on display frustrated me to the point where I felt a rebuttal was in order.

Now, I've made my views on Geert Wilders and George Galloway quite clear, both above and elsewhere. My support for Wilders being allowed entry to Britain and Galloway being banned from Canada has very little to do with my agreement or disagreement with their worldview, and everything to do with the fact they are two totally different situations, despite an initial, deceptive similarity.

The bottom line is, having the freedom to strut around the world funding murderous terrorists and not be blacklisted from entering civilised countries is simply not the same thing as basic freedom of speech or being prosecuted for declaring self-evident truths.

What does someone like Assy84 think the difference is? Well, I'll show you.

Assy84 (3 days ago)
Mr galloway isn't a racist son of a bitch whilst Geert Wilders is the greatest fascist after hitler. Putting them both in the same statement should ashame you.In fact. Surprise surprise, Galloway in this speech to toronto says that he doesn't defend freedom of speech to be given to absolutely everyone. So at least watch the conference before speaking.

thelambethwalkSE11 (3 days ago)
Talking such unadulterated nonsense should embarrass you, but it clearly doesn't.
"Geert Wilders is the greatest fascist after hitler."
Oh, I thought that was Ismail Haniyeh, Galloway's friend and personal passport officer - my mistake.
"Galloway in this speech to toronto says that he doesn't defend freedom of speech to be given to absolutely everyone."
Which proves my point, doesn't it? He wants it but won't see it given to all.

Assy84 (2 days ago)
Galloway, i repeat myself, is not a racist moron, he has never shown any kind of racist atitude. Thats why he can have freedom of speech, whilst Wilders can't because his views are sick. Don't you get it? About Haniye my answer is.... Ok man, if you say so.... That really is unadulterated nonsense.

thelambethwalkSE11 (2 days ago)
You're the one who doesn't get it - Wilders is a racist moron in YOUR OPINION. Who appointed you a moral authority, someone who just stuck up for Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh? Galloway was banned from Canada for his actions, not his views - it's really not complicated! Galloway can say whatever the hell he likes as far as I'm concerned, but he is a sponsor of a terrorist group and therefore Canada was right to keep him out. Would you care to provide evidence that Wilders is a racist?

Assy84 (2 days ago)
What!?!?! wilders not a racist in your opinion? well wonder why that would be? Every word that comes out from his mouth is racist. Every comment about inmigration, every filthy sentence towards muslims. Now tell me your evidence that Galloway sponsors a terrorist organisation? Galloway, not in my opinion, aided with food, medicines, wheelchairs, etc. That makes him to be in the radical oposite of Wilders in morality and empathy towards the poor. Get it now?

thelambethwalkSE11 (2 days ago)
Ah, let me guess - only racists think Wilders isn't a racist? How convenient, that means you don't have to answer any of my points! I don't think Geert Wilders is a racist, no. I think he's concerned about mass immigration, which is perfectly legitimate, & I think he's worried about the political and extreme aspects of Islam. His film Fitna only quoted the words of Muslims and the Koran, remember. Galloway hugged Haniyeh and gave him £25,000 of his own cash. He funded a terror group.

Assy84 (1 day ago)
Wilders is a racist, if you consider him not to be, then you are a racist yourself, weather you think it's convenient for me to say it or not. Haven't seen his film, but I'm 99'9% sure he took biased translations of Islam. Like all Islamophobic preachers do. You see, there are many of those corrupted translations everywhere. Canada considers Hamas to be a terrorist org, I consider hamas to be a legitimate resistance group. If Galloway hugged Haniye, good for him.

thelambethwalkSE11 (20 hours ago)
Right, so I either agree with you or I'm a racist? So after all this bluster, it turns out you have never seen Fitna and you're not familiar with his views - how then can you comment to the point of accusing his defenders? If there are many of those 'corrupted translations' everywhere, that must be where the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah et al get their ideas from, yeah?
Or is it possible that, maybe, Wilders and the violent Islamists are actually interpreting them quite accurately?

Assy84 (19 hours ago)
Hamas and Hezbollah aren't terrorist organistations, they are a legitimate defence for the people of middle east that fight a much superior invading force with nails and teeth. They are accused as terrorists just by a few countries. Canada, usa, netherlands, partially england and Australia. So the "interpretation" argument of yours fails in its base. No, I wont watch a film made by fascists.

thelambethwalkSE11 (19 hours ago)
The point is the vast majority of these groups justify their horrendous violence using the Koran and Islam. Wilders is simply pointing that out, and it's a very legitimate point. Hezbollah and Hamas are vile organisations, and they defend no one. They are cowards who complain of others killing children whilst hiding behind prams, then kill as many civilians as possible when they have the chance. Really, your defence of them speaks volumes about you. If you won't watch Fitna, why comment on it?

I'm sure he'll be back for more soon, but you get the idea. He hasn't watched Fitna, but he knows Wilders is a racist using biased or corrupted translations of the Koran. It's obvious, isn't it?

Wilders isn't on his knees before the multiculturalist agenda and Islam, therefore he absolutely must be a racist. Anyone who attempts to defend him, no matter how rationally, is also by definition a racist, so their points do not have to be answered.

I expect it would be a waste of time to point out to my new correspondent that Adolf Hitler actually had a lot of time for the creed of Islam. He saw it for what it was - a foreign version of what he wished Nazism to become, a political/mystic ideology of merciless, conquering warriors who feared shaming obscure concepts such as 'blood' more than they feared death.

However, it is the defence of Hamas and Hezbollah which concerns me the most. If there is any important modern day successor to the Nazis, then both of these groups must surely qualify.

Is Ismail Haniyeh a fascist? Have I got Hamas all wrong? Well, let's do a Geert Wilders - in other words, let Hamas tell the story in their own words and actions:

We see there children being taught that honour is found in death, the implication of the model rocket being thrown at the paper star is through attacking Israel or 'the Zionists'.

The sinister video below shows a play at the Islamic University of Gaza, broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV on 3rd April 2009. In it, some hideously offensive Jewish stereotypes discuss killing Muslims and drinking their blood. Nazi propaganda was packed with stories and insinuations about Jews celebrating Passover by sacrificing gentile children and drinking their blood.

If you are not convinced, there are hundreds of examples of the same thing - try MEMRI or Palestinian Media Watch.

Now, some photos of tolerant, freedom fighting, antifa Hamas members:



Hezbollah (except for the ones graduating, who I believe are also Hamas):



Last but not least, the Hamas charter:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam willobliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

Article 7:
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews andkill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and therocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behindme, come and kill him.

Article 13:
[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions andinternational conferences are in contradiction to the principles ofthe Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more thana means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands ofIslam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except byJihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but awaste of time, an exercise in futility.'

Article 32:
Hamas is calling upon the Arab and Islamic peoples to act seriously and tirelessly in order to frustrate that dreadful scheme and to make the masses aware of the danger of coping out of the circle of struggle with Zionism. Today it is Palestine and tomorrow it may be another country or other countries. For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.

Now, tell me again, who is the fascist here? Is Ismail Haniyeh a nice, peaceful resistance fighter? Does George Galloway really not know what sort of a man he was putting his arms around? Does Assy84 really not know either?

If Haniyeh can arrest rocket squads when it suits him and crush all political opposition, then I can only assume that everything that goes on in Gaza and Hamas, everything shown above, operates not only with his knowledge but his blessing and active participation.

This is why George Galloway is a traitor; this is why the Canadian government made the right decision.

The reason Wilders is despised and Galloway loved in fashionable circles is because the former works for the West, the latter against it. But the next time someone who is denouncing Wilders brings up Hitler, Nazism or fascism, remember those images above, and remember - they are the ones who wish to silence all dissent through name calling, straw man arguments and false analogies, all as a smoke screen to cover the reality of the situation.

Wilders is engaged in a life or death struggle for our values - Galloway and the forces he backs want them destroyed or subverted at all costs. I think the evidence on offer adequately demonstrates which vision would be the ideological cousin of the Third Reich, and which would be very far removed from it.