Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
That is what this idiot (an MP) is saying would be alright:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...icle601356.ece
My favorite paragraph is this one (responding to a question about whether assassinating Blaire would be ok):
"Mr Galloway replied: "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.""
Let's take a walk thorugh Logical Lane together here. He claims killing Blaire would be "morally justified." He claims killing Blaire would be "morally equivalent" to ordering the deaths of Iraqis. Yet he suggests that ordering the deaths of the Iraqis (as if he actually ordered their intentional death, by the way) would not be morally justified.
How can ordering the deaths of Iraqis under his logic not be morally justified when it is the moral equivalent of assassinating Blaire which is morally justified?
So very confusing... |
Actually, mark this one down as my favorite paragraph!
"Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced."
Now that is funny stuff! His passionate support for Castro apparently turned into a passionate encounter with Castro. But who could resist Castro's musky scent floating through the winds of Havanna?