Galloway supports Syria and Iran

April 9, 2012 at 8:14 pm (apologists and collaborators, Galloway, Human rights, Jim D, Middle East, Respect, stalinism, Syria, terror, thuggery)

Once again this piece of shit supports the most murderous and tyrannical regimes in the world. He makes it clear that he opposed the overthrow of Gaddafi (by taking the most negative possible view of the Libyan revolution), and now supports Assad (not to mention the clerical fascists of Iran). A sycophantic middle class British audience laughs approvingly. And he claims to support the “Arab spring”! Galloway really is lying, hypocritical, tyrant-worshipping scum, isn’t he?

Meanwhile:

Timeline: path to the ceasefire that never was

18 August 2011: After five months of relentless attacks by the regime of President Assad on opposition forces, the US, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union demand Assad resign, saying he is unfit to lead.

4 October 2011: Russia and China veto a European-backed UN resolution that threatened sanctions against Syria if it didn’t immediately halt its military crackdown on civilians.

29 December 2011: President Assad allows a team of Arab League observers to monitor his regime’s compliance with a new plan to end the violence. After a month, observer mission is halted due to escalating violence.

4 February 2012: Russia and China veto another UN resolution that backed an Arab League plan calling on Assad to step down.

23 February 2012: The former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is appointed special envoy to Syria.

10 March 2012: Mr Annan travels to Syria and meets President Assad. He leaves a few days later, and proposes a six-point peace plan which would include ending the movement of troops into Syrian towns, a withdrawal of heavy weapons and the start of a more general troop pullout from troubled areas.

2 April 2012: Mr Annan tells the UN Security Council the Syrian government has agreed to a 10 April deadline to implement the first stages of his ceasefire plan.

8 April 2012: Amid international scepticism that Assad is committed to ending the violence and after some of the deadliest assaults yet on opposition fighters, the Syrian regime puts new conditions on the ceasefire, including that rebel fighters agree in writing to lay down their weapons – conditions rejected by the opposition.

47 Comments

  1. Jimmy said,

    Old Gorgeous gets it right.

  2. skidmarx said,

    At 8mins he says “Assad Must Go”

    • Jimmy said,

      The problem is that Assad has no where to go just like Gadaffi. The killing goes on then the next mobsters move in.

  3. UPDATE: Galloway supports Syria and Iran « Shiraz Socialist « Regional Wars! said,

    […] the original post here: Galloway supports Syria and Iran « Shiraz Socialist April 9th, 2012 | Tags: annan, ending-the-movement, few-days, movement, plan-which, President, […]

  4. Resitutive Justice said,

    `This piece of shit’? I think your presence and the presence of your comrades at any labour movement event should be greeted with extreme caution from here on in. Galloway is clearly an opponent of the Assad regime and supports the uprising against him. Hell he played his part in helping to induce the Arab Spring in the first place. He certainly doesn’t take the crude Stalinist position that the uprisings against Gadaffi or Assad are CIA/islamist conspiracies and nor has a little opportunist intervention by the West turned him against the Arab Spring. Far from it. He is happy to describe his recent victory as signalling a Bradford Spring. As for Iran, who but the most disgusting neo-con or zionist doesn’t oppose an imperialist assault against it?

  5. Monsuer Jelly est Formidable said,

    what a rediculous piece of shit

    gallowaY and his arse lickers that is

    • Gary Wood said,

      George is right again. Why dont they go out looking for the crap that goes in other churches of all denominations? Because you can easily get away with attacking Muslims. Thats the show. Well done George. Shame on the BBC.

  6. Monsuer Jelly est Formidable said,

    lest we forget

    Former key personnel in the regime speak out against the Iranian tyranny:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/11/iran-revolutionary-guards-regime

    George Galloway’s colleagues and paymasters, Press TV – colluding in torture:

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/iran+journalistaposs+ofcom+complaint+over+tv+confession/3676242

  7. Jim Denham said,

    “Galloway is clearly an opponent of the Assad regime and supports the uprising against him”: this lie is clearly exposed by viewing the video, as well as at least one other film where Galloway praises Assad as “the last Arab leader”

    As for your thinly-veiled threat to have me and my comrades excluded from labour movement events: I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves.

  8. Resitutive Justice said,

    That was 2005 I believe. Since then the Arab Spring like the 2008 credit collapse has changed everything. Galloway helped induce the Arab Spring so he, unlike George Bush Snr. who single handedly induced the uprising of the Marsh Arabs only to turn his back on them when they responded and let Saddam butcher them isn’t going to turn his back on it just because of a bit of opportunist foreign, even imperialist, intervention.

    As for the threat I merely advised caution as to the true intent of you and your comrades presence at any labour movement gathering and I don’t think that is threatening. It is sensible. Certainly not as threatening as calling someone a `piece of shit’.

    • Monsuer Jelly est Formidable said,

      “Galloway helped induce the Arab Spring”

      demented arsehole. where do these ‘people’ get their information from?

  9. Resitutive Justice said,

    Perhaps we can settle this. Why don’t you ask Galloway to make explicit his current thinking on the Arab Spring and on the uprisings in Libya and Syria in particular? In the video above he does say as Mr Skidmarx points out that Assad must go.

  10. skidmarx said,

    “Galloway is clearly an opponent of the Assad regime and supports the uprising against him”: this lie is clearly exposed by viewing the video,

    If you start watching from 7m50s he says he’s for a negotiated change of power (I think it’s quite a bit too late for that), so he doesn’t support the armed uprising, but I think it’s fairly obvious that Mr. Jim didn’t bother to watch the video before spewing his bile.

  11. Resitutive Justice said,

    Well at least he wants rid of Assad and makes no bones about the tyrannical nature of his regime but you are right Skidmarx on viewing the video one is left a little disappointed especially with some of the conspiracy theory spinning. I had hoped that he would have broken more comprehensively with the Stalinists of the StWC who recently passed a resolution against the uprising put forth by the SWP especially as they had been largely responsible for trying to destroy Respect. But there is no doubt that Galloway and his Viva Palestina initiative helped not just to publicise the plight of the Palestinians but to open a political crack in the armoury of the Arab tyrants.

    I would like to see George come out in unconditional support of the Syrian people’s uprising. Assad must go and the people must get rid of him. He is right about the hypocrisy of the MB though. Spot on.

  12. Resitutive Justice said,

    Skidmarx: I think describing what I said as a `lie that has been exposed’ is a bit strong. Certainly i did not intend to lie. Clearly Galloway thinks the Assad regime is a tyranny and, whilst you are right that he disappointingly talks of negotiations, I don’t think that makes him not a supporter of the uprising it just means he takes a very and over cautious approach to the uprising. I’d like to see him more unconditionally supportive whilst of course warning about the possibility of subversion and the dangers of foreign intervention without letting that turning him into an opponent of the uprising.

    • skidmarx said,

      No, and it’s typical of Denham to claim that others are lying if even a part of what they say turns out to be untrue. What is much more dishonest is his claim:
      “Galloway is clearly an opponent of the Assad regime…”: this lie is clearly exposed by viewing the video

      Which clearly exposes that Denham simply didn’t bother to watch the video.

      As it happens I tend to have some sympathy with Boleyn Ali’s comparison of his ‘last castle’ defence with that for the ‘indefatigability’ speech (though I think it was then that it was a message from the Palestinians he was passing on), but still the main point here is that Denham is blatantly telling untruths about this video. Most people would admit they’d got this one badly wrong and move on, but Jim Denham isn’t most people.

  13. Boleyn Ali said,

    Here are his Syria quotes

    In the video clip in the main post he “revises” his point about Syria being the last Arab country, to something like, the Syrian people are the last Arab country. I seem to remember he tried a similar trick with over his salutations to Sadam – I was saluting the Iraqi people not their small tyrant.

    He does not mention, nor attempt to revise, his statement that “for me he (Bashar Al-Assad) is the last Arab ruler”.

    Amongst the many contradictions here, he does now say he wants Assad to go.

  14. Resitutive Justice said,

    Denham: there are so many people who can be described as `pieces of shit’ that hang around the labour movement from Andy Newman and Tony Collins to yourself, numerous Zionists and `decents’, the entirety of New Labour, left demagogues and of course the benighted and foul Stalinists but Galloway isn’t one of them. His heart at least is very much in the right place and I cannot think of anything he had done that hasn’t helped to move things in the right direction especially since he was expelled from New Labour.

  15. Resitutive Justice said,

    `I seem to remember he tried a similar trick with over his salutations to Sadam – I was saluting the Iraqi people not their small tyrant.’

    For those of good faith it would be just as easy to believe him or to welcome the qualification. But you are not of good faith.

  16. Boleyn Ali said,

    Bad Faith? – “Last Arab ruler” to “small tyrant”?

  17. Jim Denham said,

    Out of the mouths of Skiidiots…

    “If you start watching from 7m50s he says he’s for a negotiated change of power (I think it’s quite a bit too late for that), so he doesn’t support the armed uprising, but I think it’s fairly obvious that Mr. Jim didn’t bother to watch the video before spewing his bile.”

    ie Galloway does *not* support the rebels. At most, he thinks Assad should go one day, in the fullness of time, and on his own terms. This is what *all* his apologists, from ‘Stop The War’ to Jonathan Steele, say.

    My case proven, I’d say.

    P.S: *Of course* I watched the video before posting it. I assumed Galloway’s meaning would be obvious and clear and spoke for itself, even given a few weasel words. Here at Shiraz we credit our readers (even those who don’t agree with us) with *some* intelligence.

    P.P.S: RestJust: “….the benighted and foul Stalinists but Galloway isn’t one of them”…eh, I think you’ll find that he is. When he’s not being an Islamist, that is.

  18. skidmarx said,

    *Of course* I watched the video before posting it.”
    Of course you’ll understand if I’m doubtful that tis is the whole truth, and wondering if by “I watched” is meant “I clicked on the link to make sure it was Galloway, and then just copied and pasted it along with a standard denunciation”.

    I assumed Galloway’s meaning would be obvious and clear and spoke for itself
    If Denham had a shred of honesty, he’d go back to the video, reproduce a transcript of what Galloway actually said, put it up here, and then we could argue about what he said.

    At most, he thinks Assad should go one day, in the fullness of time, and on his own terms.
    That’s the flipside of the Denham formulation [“In my opinion, none of the people you mention are racists”], if someone on the Left says something, the only acceptable interpretation is the worst one Denham can mangle it into. What Galloway says is “Assad Must Go” and calls him a dictator.

    My case proven, I’d say.
    Yes, in your mind.

  19. Jim Denham said,

    Skidiot: “If you start watching from 7m50s he says he’s for a negotiated change of power (I think it’s quite a bit too late for that), so he doesn’t support the armed uprising.”

    As I said, case proven.

    P.S: Skidiot, I’d be quite prepared to go through the video and draw up a transcript, but as your own account of what Galloway says proves my point, I really don’t think that’s necessary.

  20. me said,

    “A sycophantic middle class British audience laughs approvingly. ”

    LOL!

    Those sniggering, bourgeois shits. The blood is on their hands.

  21. Resitutive Justice said,

    Galloway is right to be cautious about the nature of some elements in the uprising and also the hypocritical statements and actions of the imperialists, at least the Western ones (Russian imperialism and Chinese Stalinism have taken the lead role in scumminess when it comes to attitudes to the Arab Spring so far), but he is wrong to call for a negotiated settlement with the vicious tyrant and should support the uprising to remove him unconditionally whilst promoting the more secular and proletarian elements. But the speech above definitely shows that he believes Assad to be a tyrant and that he should go. Any person of good faith would welcome that development. It was a shame that the SWP put a resolution at StWC that the Stalinist opponents of the uprising against Assad felt able to support without too much trouble. It was also a shame that a resolution opposing the imperialist’s `humanitarian’ intervention on the grounds of cost was also passed.

    As for Iran unconditional opposition to imperialist or zionist military action or sanctions is the only correct socialist position.

  22. skidmarx said,

    “he doesn’t support the armed uprising.”
    As I said, case proven.

    In your mind. Your case was that
    “He makes it clear that he …now supports Assad”
    and the evidence that proves that conclusively is that he said:
    “Assad Must Go.”

    It’s the Humpty-Dumpty School of Lexicography claiming jurisdiction again
    [ “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” And it would seem, when anyone else uses a word].
    As I said above, most people would admit they’d got this one badly wrong and move on, but Jim Denham isn’t most people.

  23. Jim Denham said,

    How many more times? here we go again:
    “If you start watching from 7m50s he says he’s for a negotiated change of power (I think it’s quite a bit too late for that), so he doesn’t support the armed uprising.” – Skidiot.

    Skidiot: what you’ve got to understand is this:

    1/ If you don’t support the Syrian rebels, then you support Assad.
    2/ Everyone who supports Assad (eg German, Steele, Milne etc) claims to be in support of a “negotiated settlement” (cf their line on Libya)
    3/ Galloway is a fucking liar at all times and on everything. Anyone who simply takes what he says at face value, without deconstructing it (especially in the light of his record), is either an idiot or as dishonest as he is. A classic example of the first is RestJust/aka David Ellis: “But the speech above definitely shows that he believes Assad to be a tyrant and that he should go.”

  24. Resitutive Justice said,

    However Denham, nonetheless, Galloway now calls for Assad to go and that is progress. I agree there is a problem with the `negotiation’ idea because it is not exactly pro the uprising but also because it would require imperialist intervention to achieve it. Certainly the initial intention of the intervention in Libya was to either split Libya in two leaving one half in Gadaffi’s hands thereby crushing the rebellion or bring the warring parties to the negotiating table with the same result. The rebels were having none of it and pushed on with the toppling of Gadaffi which was correct. The imperialist intervention was obliged to follow in the wake of the uprising despite itself but no imperialist intervention should have turned us from supporters of the Arab Spring to its most outspoken opponents characterizing it as a CIA/Islamist plot. Galloway most certainly has not become that like most of the Stalinists and certainly the StWC I think, if you are honest, you will agree.

  25. Jim Denham said,

    Mr Ellis: “Galloway most certainly has not become that like most of the Stalinists and certainly the StWC I think, if you are honest, you will agree.”

    No I don’t: what makes you think Galloway is in any way different from the (other, eg Morning Star) Stalinists or STWC in opposing both the Libyan and, now, the Syrian, rebels?

    Apart from anything else, Galloway is a public supporter of both the the Morning Star and the STWC.

  26. SteveH said,

    What Galloway is clearly against is an imperialist led overthrow of Syria. After the mess they made of Libya, I am inclined to be symapthetic to Galloway’s strategy here. Galloway for years has been saying the corrupt Kings and puppet presidents of the Middle East needed to be toppled and I think he is sincere in this. It is just tactically he sometimes makes the wrong call imo, but I think we are talking tactics here. His sycophancy to Saddam was a desperate attempt to avert war, for this I think he should be given some slack. Clearly his position is more palatable than the pro war, pro imperialism of this site.

    When Saudi Arabia appear as the the leading force in the fight to topple Assad that should make us think. To put it in Jim’s terms, do we support the Saudi’s or Assad?

    Galloway has a great deal of goodwill among the ‘Arab street’ and to many ordinary Muslim workers he is a hero. Someone like him can be an asset to the international socialist movement, it is just he needs to be kept on a leash!

  27. Jim Denham said,

    “After the mess they made of Libya, I am inclined to be symapthetic to Galloway’s strategy here”: enough said. You’re on the wrong side. You’re scum.

    PS: but at least you inadvertently confirm that my understanding of Galloway’s position as expounded in the video in the main post, was correct.

    PPS: the only “leash” Galloway needs to be kept on is more properly called a noose.

  28. SteveH said,

    You make pronouncements like you are some kind of divinity!

    Obviously to be called scum by you is something to be proud of.

    Galloway would be held aloft by the workers in the Middle East as a hero, you would end up on some youtube video with a sword above your head.

    I would imagine any international socialist organisation would have to exclude someone like you from its ranks in order to avoid an international incident! You are a very very nasty and divisive figure. If we keep Galloway on a leash, we would have to lock you in the cellar!

  29. Jim Denham said,

    “You are a very very nasty and divisive figure”: ooh, you flatter me, MrH!

  30. Resitutive Justice said,

    SteveH: there was no mess in Libya. Gadaffi got his despite the intervention which was originally designed to save his skin. The uprising had every right to take advantage of the `humanitarian’ intervention to press home their revolt.

    Denham: `No I don’t: what makes you think Galloway is in any way different from the (other, eg Morning Star) Stalinists or STWC in opposing both the Libyan and, now, the Syrian, rebels?’

    Well for one thing the Stalinists are the most counter-revolutionary force in the labour movement globally and are hostile opponents of the Arab Spring whilst George, whatever concessions he makes to them and I agree he makes too many for reasons of political expediency, actually had a hand, however small, via his Viva Palestina convoys, in sparking the Arab Spring. Him and his followers were almost killed by Mubarak’s goons and attracted huge crowds wherever they went upsetting tyrants from Libya, Syria and Israel not to mention Egypt and Tunisia.

  31. Resitutive Justice said,

    Denham: whilst I could agree with you that the ultra anti-imperialists are wrong on Syria and Libya and are only using their anti-imperialism as a cover for their anti-revolutionism I can agree with them that your pro-zionism and positions on Iraq and Afghanistan and support for war against Iran make you a disgusting pro-imperialist `decent’.

  32. Hoorah for the Ikhwan! said,

    If you don’t support the Syrian rebels, then you support Assad.

    So no third camp then? You have to support salafist head loppers in order not to support the regime? Gawd almighty. Try selling that one to Allawite or Christian or Kurdish workers. The AWL have degenerated into a particularly hysterical middle class sect.

  33. Jim Denham said,

    Hooray: “The AWL have degenerated into a particularly hysterical middle class sect”: context, dear fellow, context.
    We’re revolutionaries, so you just won’t geddit.

  34. Jim Denham said,

    Mr Ellis: “Well for one thing the Stalinists are the most counter-revolutionary force in the labour movement globally and are hostile opponents of the Arab Spring whilst George, whatever concessions he makes to them and I agree he makes too many for reasons of political expediency, actually had a hand, however small, via his Viva Palestina convoys, in sparking the Arab Spring. Him and his followers were almost killed by Mubarak’s goons and attracted huge crowds wherever they went upsetting tyrants from Libya, Syria and Israel not to mention Egypt and Tunisia.”

    Mr Ellis: how does any of this differ from the coverage in the Morning Star?

  35. modernity's ghost said,

    Jim,

    Why do you let a racist, like David Ellis, a free rein?

    This is the bloke banned from SU blog for defending Holocaust denial?

    This is the racist who defends Gilad Atzmon

    This is the racist who use the term “Chosen people”, etc etc without batting an eyelid.

    Why Jim? Do you think Ellis adds to the debate? Or that he has something to contribute?

  36. Jim Denham said,

    Mod: “Why do you let a racist, like David Ellis, a free rein?”

    My reply: to hoist himself – as he *has* done.

    Mod: we’ve already had this debate. We’re simply not going to agree.
    I’m not in favour of denying antisemites (or other non-fascist racists) a platform. I think giving them (especially the “left” variety) a platform, serves a useful purpose.

    • modernity's ghost said,

      No Jim, we haven’t had this “debate”.

      You and the AWL have avoided discussing this issue *fully*.

      Every time it comes up I address each of your and the AWL’s points, but then you all go quiet.

      Jim, you and the AWL won’t discuss these issues to their logical *conclusion* or engage with the points I raise.

      You merely repeat a mantra, without probing or questioning its validity.

      • skidmarx said,

        “You merely repeat a mantra”

        The lack of self-awareness displayed is fucking hilarious.

  37. Faster Pussycat Miaow Miaow Miaow! said,

    Make up yer mind — GG either inspired the ‘Arab Spring’ or he had ‘small hand’. Anyone without their head wedged firmly up their arse will realise that GG is utterly irrelevant to the revolutions in the North Africa and Southwest Asia.

    Not once on extensive news coverage of revolutions in Egypt, Libya etc (including raw feeds), over a period of months, from multiple news sources, did I hear anyone ‘namecheck’ GG. More ‘evidence’ of a ‘conspiracy’ there I’d say.

  38. Hoorah for the Ikhwan! said,

    I bet it was “revolutionary” to say that if you don’t support Stalin you are supporting Hitler.

  39. Monsuer Jelly est Formidable said,

    well actually…

    yes. and the allied powers were also fully aware of that also. as was any communist werthy of the name at the time as well.

  40. Jim Denham said,

    Mod: list your specific questions, preferably numbered, and I’ll do my best to answer them.

  41. Restitutive Justice said,

    `This is the bloke banned from SU blog for defending Holocaust denial?’

    You forgot one thing Mud you sad little professional zionist. I have never defended Holocaust Denial. But Andy Newman said I did so that’s that. Much like you he needs no evidence to blacken the names of political opponents on spurious grounds. Zionists and Stalinists are much of a muchness in technique.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: