Speaking of Trolls

As noted in the comments of the last post, I don't read very many "blogs." Apart from Slashdot and journals of some of my friends, the only "blog"-like site I read is Sound Politics, and I do that to get quick access to local right-wing political information, not for the opinions.

So I did not find out until yesterday about this George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens debate from last week. Hitchensweb has some more information.

I knew a bit about MP Galloway, but not very much. And then I started reading some of the Galloway quotes compiled by Hitchens (PDF).

And all I can say is: if you were one of the many who applauded Galloway when he came to the Senate some months ago and blasted the U.S. government and President Bush, you owe it to yourself to read some of this.

I personally found Galloway's performance to be ridiculous: it lacked any serious substance, and was essentially just berating people for the sake of berating them. This is probably what appealed to so many people: they are angry about the war, and just liked seeing someone give voice to that anger, regardless of the sense that any of the words used actually made.

But if you're angry at the war in Iraq, chances are you will be even angrier at some of the other things Galloway has said, such as when he said of the Shi'ites Hussein slaughtered in 1991, he called:

a fifth column who actively undermined the Iraqi war effort in the interests of their country's enemy.

That's right, standing up for your own freedom is aiding your country's enemy.

Not merely content to smear those fighting for their own liberty, he praises the people who wipe them out.

These poor Iraqis -- ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons -- are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day ... it can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just
defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs, and they are defending all the people of the world from American hegemony.

Note that these people are also fighting against the will of the majority of Iraqis, and indeed, killing many Iraqis who oppose their views, as well as journalists who report on them.

And note that he is not merely against invaders. He favored the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and says that the loss of the USSR -- which gave liberty to hundreds of millions of people, ending the single most destructive regime in the history of the world -- "the biggest catastrophe of my life."

And regarding the elections last January, he praised Hussein's election, and denounced this one, because of the

thousands of Crusader soldiers occupying the country, drawing up the electoral law, deciding who is allowed to take part in the elections, and utterly dominating the political life of the country.

He ignores the fact that it was mostly Arabs, including the Iraqis themselves and the UN envoy, who decided on the rules of the elections, and that the answer to "who is allowed to take part" was "everyone."

But it gets worse. In 1994 he said to Hussein:

Your Excellency, Mr President. I greet you in the name of the many thousands of people in Britain who stood against the tide and opposed the war and aggression against Iraq and continue to oppose the war by economic means which is aimed to strangle the life out of the great people of Iraq... I greet you too, in the name of the Palestinian people... I thought the President would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam. I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And if I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory until Jerusalem!

So it was a war of aggression to kick Hussein out of Kuwait? With the full approval of the UN Security Council?

And ... victory in Jerusalem? Is he actually calling for the Arabs to get rid of the Israelis? That was 1994. What does he say this year?

Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it.

Note that this is not 1945, this is 2005.

I don't know if Hitchens can be said to have won his debate with Galloway. I can say that he has done something far more important: exposed Galloway as a despicable, hateful, bloodthirsty man who is out to have Israel destroyed, and the West subservient to communism and jihadism.

Next time you root for Galloway when he is lambasting someone you dislike, remember what he is rooting for.