This is a cross-post by Azarmehr from “For a democratic secular Iran. For peace and prosperity in the Middle East”
****
I found about a Stop the War meeting in the House of Commons where Galloway was speaking through my friend. Peyvand Khorsandi [Shappis Khorsandi's brother]. We decided to go along and meet this stooge of dictators face to face. While queuing to go through the security we told the policeman who was directing the people to different queues that we were going to Committee Room 19. Two of the Stop the War enthusiasts heard us and cheerily said to us,
‘Oh we are going to the same meeting as well. Are you Palestenians?’
To which we replied,
‘We like Palestinians but we are Iranians’.
The two women got even more excited and replied,
‘Oh we support Iran against the West!’
They must have thought all Iranians support the regime in Iran. When I replied,
‘So why don’t you go and live in Iran and allow two Iranian women to come here and enjoy the same privileges you enjoy in the West’
they finally cottoned on that despite their initial enthusiasm, we were not in the same ilk as them.
I asked them if they liked Galloway who used to be best pals with Saddam Hussein and his murderous son, Uday Hussein. They shook their heads and refused to believe that Galloway ever had anything to do with Saddam. I asked them if they would like to give me their emails so I could send them the video links of Galloway calling Uday ‘Your excellency’ and telling him ‘That he is with them to the end’. The two Stop the War devotees however were not what you would call open minded people, more like ostridges with their heads buried in the sand who did not want to know the truth or discuss alternative opinions. They even said ‘We are going to tell ‘them’ to stop you from coming to the meeting’ and moved ahead of the queue away from us. So much for open debate and free discussion with these ‘useful idiots’.
As we entered the committee room, no one tried to stop us however, but the stares and the whispers indicated that many were uncomfortable about our presence. I quickly scanned the room, full of ‘useful idiots’, SWP’s John Rees and Lindsay German were there in the back, but I had managed to get a seat right next to Galloway himself. I was told to move because that chair was reserved for another speaker. Well that was the closest I got to the Supreme Leader I thought and happily obliged to move one chair away.
Galloway started the meeting and it wasn’t long before he went on about UK police brutality during the Gaza protests in London! My plan was genuinely to wait for question time and say,
‘You had a moustache when you worked for Saddam, now you work for the Supreme Leader and wear a beard, you are nothing but a fraud, you can not liberate the people of Palestine by serving brutal dictators’
…but to be honest given that all of Galloway’s pets were there, neither did I think I would be given a chance to ask a question nor did I want to sit through two hours of this bullshit. Hence I shouted,
‘How can you go on about police brutality in this country when you work for a regime whose police beat up, kill and rape peaceful protesters?’.
That was it. Peyvand started backing me up as well by asking him how he can go on about police brutality in UK but remain silent about all the crimes that are going in Iran?
And guess what? The same Galloway who was going on about UK police brutality had to ask the police not only to remove us from the room but also to detain us in the House of Commons police room until their meeting was over and they had left the building.
You can’t write a better script than that, can you? what a hypocrite Galloway and Stop the War mob are!
These pictures were taken before Galloway called the police:
By contrast, here are the Islamic Republic’s police dragging students out of their dormitories and beating them senseless before they pile their lifeless bodies on top of each other:
Update:
Here is a video of our confrontation with George Galloway:
27 Comments
Genius!
Galloway is the biggest indefatiguiable hypocrite in the UK, bar none.
Excellent write-up. Thank you.
It’s difficult not be disheartened when one thinks of what the dictatorial regimes in Iran and Iraq have done to their once supremely beautiful countries. And these big brother stars who support such regimes deserve all the abuse they get thrown at them.
When one thinks of what George Galloway is doing today, one cannot help thinking of other cases of dictatorial regimes in the same region which received Western supported in the past – namely George Bush Snr’s support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and Eisenhower and the CIA’s well documented overthrowing of the democratically elected Mosaddeq and subsequent support for Shah Pahlavi (whose inevitably autocratic ways eventually lead to galvanisation of support for the Islamic revolution)
The case of Iran is most ironic in that America, with it’s myopic Clash of Civilization policies, so bemoans the lack of democracy in Iran, while they were the ones who dealt the death-blow to this very same democracy in the first place.
One doesn’t have to be a genius to see that America’s activities were motivated by oil – it’s support for Iraq was brought on by Iran’s minings in the Persian Gulf, and the overthrow of Mosaddeq by the latter’s attempts to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which, until then, had been having 85% of its profits creamed off by its western counterparties and publication of internal accounts suppressed.
But it’s harder to see what Galloway’s motivations might be. Be that as it may, protests and publications such as this are highly commendable.
Long live the shoe-throwers.
Again, the same old blindness to the Iranian regime’s blanket suppression of it’s own people, especially when you can sidle in a non-related point regarding US imperialism.
Long live the Iranian Democracy Movement!
Yes indeed, long live the Iranian Democracy Movement. Long live Iranian art and culture and freedom of speech and dress.
And down with cursory readings of blog comments which completely miss the point.
Sorry, but I’m not going to be drawn into another fruitless discussion here with people misunderstanding me.
Abu Faris, don’t even think about it
Why would I, Abu Yusuf – after all, you are always right, of course.
No one is misunderstanding. Just bewildered why George Bush has to be brought in every fucking time we talk about the suppression of the Iranian people by it’s regime. Just in case, we forget who the real baddies are.
And incidentally, the biggest exponents of the clash of civilisation narrative is by Islamists themselves who insist that Islamic values are superior to and immiscible with Western values.
Can I just say that I am heartily sick and tired of the reductionist “it’s all about oil” argument as applied to Western policy in Central and Western Asia.
Michael Ezra wrote a very useful and illuminating piece on the complexities of the motivations for the removal of Mossadeq about a month ago; which laid quite emphatically to rest the various elements of the “received wisdom” on that affair.
I would recommend that Abu Yusuf go away and read it and then return with a suitably snide rejoinder.
There was and is no oil im Afghanistan, of course.
dawood, because were talking about people who support dictatorial regimes in Iran and Iraq.
abu faris, i’m not reducing to central and western asia or talking about afghanistan, but stating historical facts about iran and iraq
apologies for perceived snideness.
dawood, because were talking about people who support dictatorial regimes in Iran and Iraq.
Yes because the US are patrons of the Ahmadinejad regime now. Who knew?
dawood,
i didn’t say that US supports Ahmadinejad as clearly they don’t. I just said that the US destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953, and subsequently supported the dictatorial regime of the shah (for a while).
no offence taken.
And the Iranian regime which came to power in 1979 has a long list of abuses against humanity up to the present date but we can’t talk about those because, as you said, the US destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953, and subsequently supported the dictatorial regime of the shah (for a while).
One might wonder what the Tsarist Empire and latterly the Soviet Union (and now Russia) find so fascinating about Iran… after all they have been a major interested party in Iranian affairs since the Russians first burst upon the banks of the Caspian in the latter part of the 17th Century.
Of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s vital geopolitical position (nor any less that of neighbouring Iraq – the “Gate to the West” as she was once known) which has so detained foreign powers, local and distant since at least the time of Alexander.
No, not geopolitical realities! It was all about oil – which as any fool knows was vital to the smooth running of all ancient and more generally pre-industrial economies. {sarcasm OFF}
dawood,
yes the current iranian regime has a long list of abuses, which i deplore. They have laid waste to what little remained of iranian culture.
the original poster of this article is absolutely right to protest against this regime and I support him. I would love it for someone to ask Galloway, ‘How can you go on about police brutality in this country when you work for a regime whose police beat up, kill and rape peaceful protesters?’.
I don’t get it. Why do you think I support the current iranian regime?
Is it not possible any more to post here without being misunderstood and attacked?
Perhaps what you are really objecting to, Abu Yusuf, is being called out by people who think you are mistaken?
We are allowed to think that you are wrong, you know.
I don’t get it. Why do you think I support the current iranian regime?
I said no such thing nor did I attack you. My point is, to ask why we have to dilute the criticism of the Islamic Republic’s repression of it’s own people by attributing part of the blame, if not all, to the USA. Is it because they are babes in the wood who can’t be held responsible because they they know not what they are doing?
abu faris, as you know, tsarist russia’s involvement with iran pre-dates the large scale mining of oil for automobile and heavy industry, and the role that oil currently plays in the global economy.
dawood, no dilution was intended.
abu faris, yes you are free to think i am wrong. But what is it that I am wrong about?
friends, okay I think I’m beginning to get it. Sorry I mentioned America. Please resume normal services.
I raised the issue of Afghanistan as there (as in countless other places) the USA has exercised quite physically her perceived interests despite the lack of oil. This would suggest that one might broaden one’s approach to understanding of what America’s general and particular motivations may be.
In the case of Iran (and Iraq – and for much of the very long history of these places they are more or less to be considered as hand-in-hand), there is clear evidence that oil did not motivate prior foreign interventions which were, if anything, still more frenzied and certainly as self-interested as any American involvement may be.
It is clearly not about oil, in part or whole. Iran and Iraq, even at peak production, are not the main sources of supply. One might wonder why the tanks are not presently rolling through Caracas were America so retentive about oil anywhere, of whatever quality and quantity.
Oil is a useful meme for people who either do not grasp the complexities of the situation in Western/Central Asia, or have anti-American axes to grind that are best sharpened by jumping on the latest political band-waggon.
abu faris,
the point here is the Azarmehr and Khorsandi’s brilliant protest against Galloway. I don’t want to divert the discussion away from that.
For the sake of (no) argument, yes you are right.
I have made it perfectly clear, above, in my prior comments what I think you are wrong about, Abu Yusuf. In fact so clear it could not be missed by a blind man riding backwards on a horse.
Stop playing games, it’s tiresome and makes you seem less than serious in your convictions.
abu faris, please take my email address from the administrators (you may have access to it yourself) and write to personally what it is that I am wrong about. Let’s take this discussion offline. Thank you.
You raised the issue of oil, Abu Yusuf – now you do not want to continue down that avenue – how very telling. Surely not because you realise quite what a stupid remark it was in the first place?
Perish the thought.
I am not interested in your email address, Abu Yusuf. And I am unwilling to provide you with mine.
abu faris,
my discussion of oil was limited to the Mosaddeq case and the motivational factors for support for the iran-iraq war. The important role that oil played as a motivating factor in these cases is well documented and difficult to refute.
I would put it to you that you are putting words into my mouth to prove me wrong either because of a previous disagreement (I would prefer to call it misunderstanding), or because you believe that everything I say must a priori be wrong, or for reasons known to yourself. In any case, putting words into my mouth hardly leads to a useful discussion.
Here’s some Persian for you, Abu Yusuf:
Man dar farkash nest, dustani jani man.
No. I think you have been wrong in almost everything you have written here. I do not think you have any especial agenda (other than a predilection for time-wasting and thinking yourself vastly important) and I am not personally aggreived by you – irritated, yes; aggrieved no.
I would get that paranoia under control, sunbeam. It makes you look silly.
You are still not getting my email address.
Let’s get this into perspective, Abu Yusuf.
Whenever anyone disagrees with you, you claim that you have been misunderstood. If pressed, you then claim that X is somehow out to get you.
In the Arab world, there is a well-known proverb. To paraphrase: “I hit him, he hits me back and then I run crying to mum.” This is exactly your tactic whenever you are confronted with disagreement.
You raised the issue of it being all about oil, you raised the discredited views about Mossadeq and his regime. You were then taken to task on these, your views. This is called debate. You do not like people disagreeing with you, so you start your usual, and deeply tiresome round of “not being understood’ and then deliberately not understanding others yourself. This is dishonest and not debate. Hence my complete lack of interest in your attempts to falsely moderate this discussion because you do not feel you are getting the better of it.
In the past you attempted to smuggle in some less than useful pseudo-philosophical clap-trap to back up your claims. I did not agree with you. I take some interest in philosophy and I object to its abuse for polemical ends (it was once known as sophisty, that kind of thing) – rather as medics object to snake-oil salesmen on the pitch.
There’s an end to it, Abu Yusuf. My advice is don’t talk with people. After all, they might disagree with you.
Now – in the words of my less than saintly grandma – do one, chum.
Abu Faris,
The “Mosaddeq case” is far from discredited, as a recent BBC documentary which interviewed many of the the politicians who were active at the time has shown.
Look, when I mentioned the US, it wasn’t to try and remove blame from the current Iranian regime. Perhaps you (and dawood) are so used to Islamist commentators coming here and trying to do just that that you paint me with the same brush.
I mentioned the US because I saw things from the perspective of human rights abuses in Iran (perhaps because of my love of Iran and Iranian culture as it was before the Islamic revolution). It’s not that my brain is wired to think “America bad, all Islamic regimes good” (as some people who you meet here might think). But I think both America and the revolutionary guard have *independently* been the cause of much evil in Iran.
However, I now realise that the overriding perspective of Spittoon writers (and therefore of this particular article) is about crimes perpetrated specifically by Islamic regimes.
So, yes, I admit that my comment was out of place. More power to spittoon.
Don’t take any of it personally Abu Y. It’s an intellectual debate as far as I’m concerned, nothing more and nothing less.