This guy just joined my "notorious nutsos" list:
"Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"
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."
For those that know me, know that I wasn't a big fan of the War of in Iraq.
Even myself, a "dove" on Iraq, can see the two are not morally equivalent. In the one case a concerted effort by superpowers has come together to remove a dictator from power - a noble goal. I believe it to be misguided, but it's still based on good intentions at the very least.
In the other, a democratically elected leader is being assisinated in cold blood. Those are not morally equivalent by any stretch of the imagination.
This is just a sober reminder about why the anti-war movement failed. There was no principled opposition by anyone. The anti-war movement in western society failed because it had more to do with hating the "evil" Bush, than with actually preventing a needless war.
Placing much needed distance between this lunatic fringe was almost immediate for some:
The Stop the War Coalition criticised Mr Galloway: "We don't agree with Tony Blair's actions, but neither do we agree with suicide bombers or assassinations."
No kidding. Neither do I, and I'm sure neither does it represent the views of the majority of those that were against the war. However at it's root, I'm not entirely convinced that the thinking of many in the anti-war movement is much different. None of them seem to consider the logical conclusion of their thinking.
For the greater part, I think their thinking has more to do with how "evil" Bush is... If he's that evil, then surely someone needs to kill him... And that's one line of thinking that is just quite frankly looney and goes to the root of why the anti-war movement failed.
Let me leave you with one final condemnation:
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.
If this is the poster child of the anti-war movement, I want nothing to do with it.