Re: George Galloway
 

In that case I would have used "TIT".

Re: George Galloway
 

I know this is an old one but.........................................






















Nah, Tits are useful




:o

Re: George Galloway
 

and fun to play with.

Re: George Galloway
 

Especially Blue Tits

Re: George Galloway
 

[QUOTE=Trophy;7422807]
Where did you get that address from and which territory does it come under? You just pasted the same link which I did in my post and I just searched through it again but couldnt find Palestine or Gaza.

Re: George Galloway
 

[QUOTE=Edo;7424852]Look in the Asia section, under Israel.

Re: George Galloway
 

Where is this list? Who gets to choose which organizations are on it?

"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"

I take it that you wouldn't object if Nelson Mandela was refused entry on similar grounds on the basis of his association with the ANC "terrorist" organization turned democratically elected government.

Re: George Galloway
 

I belive independant countries have thier own lists complied by those elected to run the government of the day.

Nelson Mandela unilaterally renounced the use of violence a long time ago, probably causing one of the biggest changes for better i have seen i my life time. How can you compare Nelson Mandela with George Galloway?

I think that this thread has taken very inappropriate turns, and into something quite ugly. Next I'll be asked to defend some israeli soldier who quite obviously has committed war crimes.

Re: George Galloway
 

[QUOTE=Souvenir;7424912]That proves my point

Re: George Galloway
 

So if, for example, a country unilaterally decides that, the British Army is a "terrorist" for invading Iraq without UN authority (a conflict that Canada did not join with) it is OK for Canada to ban all members of the British government from entering Canada?

Re: George Galloway
 

I didn't compare them, I asked a question

Re: George Galloway
 

If Canada decided that the British Army was a terrorist organization, then yes, in theory, anybody who played an active role in, or supported, the British Army could quite legitimately be barred from entering Canada. Since the Army is funded through general taxation, that could theoretically mean that all British taxpayers were persona non grata in Canada.

Bit of a ludicrous analogy, though, innit?

Your question on Nelson Mandela is more valid. Before the UK and other first-world countries woke up to the fact that the apartheid regime was fundamentally barbaric, and before the shift in public sentiment became apparent through boycotts of South African goods and sports, the ANC was classed as a terrorist organization and its leaders (those not imprisoned on Robben Island, that is) were indeed barred from many countries.

With the change in international attitudes, and the commitment by ANC to non-violent means, came the un-banning of the ANC and lifting of those travel restrictions. Until the late 1980s, though, the ANC was certainly considered a terrorist organisation by the USA, and its members not permitted to travel to the States.

The same sort of thing happened with IRA/Sinn Fein - remember when Gerry Adams' words had to be spoken by an actor on news broadcasts? Once SF had renounced violence and distanced themselves from the various splinter groups of Republican terrorism, Adams and McGuinness could travel freely to mainland UK and appear on TV with their own voices.

I have no doubt that if and when Hamas drops its aim of the armed destruction of Israel, its leaders and supporters - including George Galloway if he chooses - will be welcome in Canada.

Re: George Galloway
 

Not really, if the poster had responded that it was a Canadian list prepared by the Canadian authorities I would agree with you. As it was, the suggestion was that "independent" countries compiled the list.

I am sure that such a list (Canadian) exists, out of interest I would like to see it to enable me to see if I can deduce what type of organizations are deemed "terrorist". i.e., does it have to effect Canada's own interests, those of Canada's allies etc. I would be interested to see how they define Mugabe and his ilk.

I agree with the rest of what you said.

Re: George Galloway
 

Why would Canada choose to honour the fact that "a country" choses to a call the British Army terrorist?

I think there are plenty of countries that calling them that now.

Re: George Galloway
 

erm... it wasn't exactly unilateral, nor was it, in the grand scheme of things, all that long ago. One of the main driving forces behind the winding up of the military branch of the ANC was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Weaponry and political support from the USSR, channeled through Angola, had been the mainstay of ANC armed struggle for years. The ending of that financial support, coupled with the changing attitudes of Western governments towards the apartheid regime, put the ANC in a position where Tambo, then Mandela, as its leaders, could gain more political capital out of renouncing violence than he would through trying to continue with that policy. Don't forget that he reiterated his, and the ANC's, commitment to armed resistance on the day of his release from prison in 1990.

Agreed, though, that the political changes that led to and followed from the ANC's renouncing of violence were world-changing events.