In the interview with Tim Adams reported here, George Galloway denies any distinction between war and what some of us call terrorism, other than that one is ordered 'by men in suits', the other 'by men in sandals'. And so blowing up a bus full of schoolchildren isn't terrorism, it's just 'a grisly aspect' of revolutionary insurgency. This is similar to the can't-be-choosy option made famous by John Pilger.
Here, then, is something to think about. What would these two have to say, do you reckon, to the suggestion that their logic might just as well be reversed so that from now on the US and Britain (etc.) at war may just freely target civilians? I'm predicting neither of them would approve. It's a hunch based on what they already think about civilian casualties provided these are inflicted by the 'right' countries, and even when not deliberately. These are people who think about war, revolution, insurgency and the like a lot of the time, but - like the SWP theoretician I discussed here - are essentially know-nothings when it comes to the moral questions of the just war.
Galloway is also reported in the same place as having said the following:
I have been with Arafat for 30 years, and I admire him very much. Without him I think Palestinians might now be in the museum, with the Red Indians.Got that? In the museum - the victims of a genocide. This is the man whom a section of the left is comfortable to have as its figurehead. (Hat tip: AC.)