George Galloway
Thank God, Mr Speaker, for the erudition and historical memory of the last three speeches;
almost entirely absent in the Prime Minister’s initial address.
He was clearly making a speech which was not the one he intended to make here this afternoon.
Otherwise, he would not have persuaded you, at vast public expense,
to recall the House of Commons to decide
that we’re actually going to decide on this matter next week or the week after,
when we’re back here in any case.
It’s absolutely evident that if it were not for the democratic revolt
which has been under way in this House of Commons and outside in the wider public against this war,
that the engines in Cyprus would now be revving
and the cruise missiles ready to fly this very weekend,
and any attempt by the Prime Minister to pretend that he had always, all along,
intended on this course of action is just bunkum.
And the reason for the unease here on both sides of the House
[demonstrated in] two exceptional speeches from the last speaker
and the Hon. Member from New Forest East,
encompassed the feelings of the people of the country.
Only 11% of the public, according to The Daily Telegraph this morning,
support Britain becoming involved in a war in Syria.
Can ever a British Government have imagined sending its men and women to war
with the support of just 11% in public opinion?
First; that there is no compelling evidence- to use the Leader of the Opposition’s words-
that the Assad regime is responsible for this crime, yet.
Not that they’re not bad enough to do it, Mr Speaker;
everybody knows [that] they’re bad enough to do it.
The question is: are they mad enough to do it?
To launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day
that a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in Damascus;
must be a new definition of madness.
And of course, if he is that mad,
how mad is he going to be once we’ve launched a blizzard
of Tomahawk cruise missiles upon his country?
As I heard the Front Benches describe how bad he was,
I wondered just why the former Prime Minister
forced Her Majesty to billet him in her guest room at Buckingham Palace just a few years ago,
and how a former Prime Minister recommended him for an honour
and how he was hailed on all corners as a moderniser.
But of course the narrative has changed
because the Government is intent on regime change in Damascus
which brings me to the only other point I'm going to be able to make in the time available.
The reason for the unease is that people can see the character of the Syrian opposition.
They have seen the videos; we’ve heard about horrific videos.
Take a look at the video of one of the commanders of the Syrian revolution
cutting open the chest of a human being and eating his heart and liver
and videotaped himself and putting it up on YouTube
because he thought it might be considered attractive.
Take a look at the videos of Christian priests having their heads sawn off-
not chopped off; sawn off- with breadknives.
Even a bishop in the Christian Church was murdered by these people.
Every religious minority in Syria- and there are 23 of those-
is petrified at the victory of the Syrian rebels,
that the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have been doing their utmost to supply
with weapons and money these last two years, and they cannot deny it.
They say it’s now about this crime, whoever committed it,
but it’s been the Government’s policy for two years
to bring about the defeat of the regime in Damascus
and a victory of the kind of people responsible for these crimes.
I have 20 seconds left—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Willingly.
If only for another 60 seconds.
The Hon. Member made reference [to arms supplied to Syria],
but let’s remember where those arms have come from, over decades:
from this country’s supply to Syria
Indeed.
I have now 60 seconds at my disposal, so let me make this point more clearly.
When did Russia and China- 2.5 billion people-
cease to be members of the international community?
Who are you on the other side to decide what the international community thinks [we] should do?
I f you are unable to persuade the Security Council to go along with your point of view,
who are you to decide that you will launch a war in any case?
You see, I keep hearing about the unreasonable use of the veto.
I’ve heard that many times over the last few years in this House.
The United States has vetoed every attempt to obtain justice for the Palestinian people
and to punish and issue retribution for international law-breaking on the part of Israel,
and nobody in this House has said one word about it. Yes I’ll give way.
I’m very grateful to the Honourable Member for giving way to me.
Mr Speaker, I think you will be very interested to know that I’ve had several constituents email me
about comments made by the Hon. Member for Bradford West on Iranian Press TV
in which, my constituent claims, that the Hon. Member said
that Israel supplied the chemical for the attacks in Syria.
I would find that very hard to believe that the Hon. Member said that,
so would he like to take this opportunity to refute that
or provide the evidence to satisfy my constituent?
It just shows the unreliability of relying upon green-ink letters,
whether they come in the post or in e-mails, for I said no such thing.
But the Syrian rebels definitely had sarin gas,
because they were caught with it by the Turkish Government,
as was referred by the former Government Minister opposite-
if you’ll forgive me, I forget his constituency.
[Interruption]
No, I know mine; it’s where I gave you such a bloody good hiding just over a year ago.
The Syrian rebels have got plenty of access to sarin.
It’s not rocket science, Mr Speaker.
A group of Shinto obscurantists in Japan living on Mount Fuji
poisoned the Tokyo underground with sarin gas less than 20 years ago.
You don’t have to be Einstein to have your hands on sarin gas or the means to distribute it.
Russia and China say no to war; so do I and most people in this country.