[Home Page]
KryssTal Feedback Pages:
KryssTal Pages:
|
Readers' Feedback
Democracy
Page 6 of 6
|
|
|
[Home Page]
KryssTal Feedback Pages:
KryssTal Pages:
|
Readers' Feedback
Democracy
Page 6 of 6
|
|
FAREWELL, FRANCEBy RALPH PETERS April 11, 2003 -- AS the Baghdad regime's officials fled, leaving behind terrorists and thugs as a rear guard, a trio of Saddam's dismayed defenders met in Moscow. French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin - the axis of non-nein-nyet - discussed their powerlessness to save a favored dictator. Ah, could we but overhear the curses those three hurled our way in their anger and their impotence. But don't expect this trio to continue to sing in harmony. Resembling the Arab street in their determination to blame the United States for home-made ills, Chirac and Schroeder have no meaningful futures. Putin is another sort entirely, colder and more wary of empty gestures. We will find ways to work with Moscow, although our mutual embrace will not be particularly warm. Putin is clever enough to know a losing hand when events have forced one upon him. He would like to restrain the United States, but he will never sacrifice his country's interests to those of France or Germany.
Gerhard Schroeder doesn't even matter. The only politician in the West who can make Bill Clinton seem a model of integrity and courage, the German chancellor leads a feckless nation of moral incompetents. We will mend our outward relationship with Berlin, but, on the level that matters, we've said auf Wiedersehen to Lili Marlene. The farewell was overdue. Our troops will leave Germany across the coming decade, as the German welfare state continues to fare less and less well. We will continue to trade goods, but will never again trade diplomatic intimacies. We will shake hands in public, but our private relationship has been permanently shaken. This is a positive development, further liberating the United States from its thrall to continental Europe. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was exactly right to dismiss "Old Europe" as much diminished in relevance.When next the Germans and French tug at the sleeves of our policymakers, we are likely to brush them off - not without a measure of satisfaction.
The changed relationship with France matters most. Chirac, abetted by his sorcerer's apprentice, Foreign Minister Dominque de Villepin, has done his country's status nothing but harm through "l'affaire Iraq."Grotesquely overestimating France's influence and authority, Chirac garnered an empty round of applause with his self-adoring performance in support of a heinous dictator. But the end effect was to bring Charles de Gaulle's inflated legacy to a sputtering end. Since the close of the Second World War, France had been permitted a louder voice than its stature merited. That era is over, murdered by Chirac. While calling President Bush a shoot-from-the-hip cowboy, Chirac shot his own country in the back. France defied the United States, not wisely but too well. Chirac's foreign minister went out of his way to humiliate Colin Powell, the Bush Cabinet's most congenial member from a European perspective. But the astonishing thing is that Chirac genuinely seems to have believed that France could force a bit into Washington's mouth, then jerk the reins.
Well, France fell off the horse before the race got underway. There will be handshakes with Paris, too, and hollow hugs and kisses. But France will never again be allowed even the illusion of a voice in shaping American policy. Chirac has thrown away the last rags of influence France could wear to the diplomatic ball. Consider the situation in which France has been left by this very expensive outburst of Gallic vanity: * France's lack of influence has been revealed to a humiliating degree. * France has an aging population, a troubled economy and a hamstrung government paralyzed by a culture of entitlement. It is creaking toward irrelevance, while the United States surges ahead. * France's shrunken military is closer in organization and capabilities to a World War II force than to America's armed forces; the French cannot even manage civil strife in Ivory Coast. * France's elite - a fake aristocracy of bourgeois intellectuals - has no vision for the future, only a crippling nostalgia for the past. * France has the most ferociously racist society in Europe - with rapidly expanding Arab and ethnic African populations unable to integrate. The coming explosions will make America's race riots of the 1960s look like a series of cotillions. Still, fairness is an American, if not a French, trait. After all the wartime jokes have been told, the truth is that the French people are not to blame for the current state of affairs.
They're really OK - honest - and they do cook damnably well. The problem lies in the government bureaucracy and its supporting cadre of Parisian intellectuals. France is far from a meritocracy in the American vein. Rather, the ruling and chattering classes in France are inbred even by European standards. They go to the same small number of schools and universities, cherish the same tenured, state-funded positions, and live in the same Parisian neighborhoods. And they hate with far greater facility than they create. These are the small men and women who cannot bear France's diminished role in the world, who lash out at America for championing the average citizen's right to opportunity (egalité - equality - only goes so far on the Left Bank), and who dream loftily of changing the world when they cannot even change the political prejudices they have held for half a century. Now they and their champions, Chirac and de Villepin, have gotten a brutal comeuppance. France has lost authority, credibility and influence in 2003 almost as swiftly as the French lost their country in 1940. The paradox is that, in the long term, this humiliation of the Parisian elite may be a good thing for the common people of France despised by the ruling class. In the meantime, "Au revoir, chere Marianne. Hope you didn't catch a chill in Moscow."
To: the Webmaster(s)
Your website is amazing. I've rarely seen such a vast amount of information neatly tabulated and organised as I have on your website.I am especially impressed with the Why the USA Section? You have tried to be fair to all and you've encouraged people to make up their own minds.
But, when reading through the Acts of Democracies section, I found a small mistake. You mention that in 1975, India jailed many Opposition Leaders. As an Indian, I can tell that that is absolutely true. There was something called an emergency and though we had a Government which was still elected, the Army took over the day to day running of the country. Mind you, it was not a coup. But its the next line that is wrong. You've written that a coup occurred in Bangladesh. The Major Political Party asked for Independance and when it was not given, they revolted. It was not a coup. The Province of East Pakistan sent more delegates to the National Assembly that West Pakistan, yet they received less than the West Paksitani Provinces when it came to Government Aid and Money. While you may have your own views on India involvement in Bangladesh's Liberation, it would be unfair to the Bangladeshi people to say that what happened in 75 was a coup.
It was a freedom movement whicb ended in victory. While you may see India's involvement in a different light, don't disrespect the Bangladeshis who had to fight oppression and those who died for it. There were thousands of Bangladeshis who were killed by the Orders of Yahya Khan, the Military Dictator of Pakistan, who took power in a coup from Gen Ayub Khan who had also come to Power in a Coup. So, aside from that fact, I'd have to say that your website is pretty good.
When will you be finishing [from 1980 onwards]? I'd like to see them because you Mention Indian Terror in Kashmir and Terror in Kashmir again later, so I'd like to know what you actually think went on in Kashmir. Naturally, everybody has a right to an honest and sraightforward Opinion and I would like to know what you think.
KryssTal Reply: Thank you for your kind letter.
I will look at your comments after the USA Iraq war ends as I am working on that now.
There are too many lies on your web site to list them.
FUCK YOU
Diana, USA
KryssTal Reply: Thank you for reading the site and responding. Debate is what democracy is all about.
A leftist, you had to go and prove how intelligent you are.: "Fuck you" passes for debate with leftists, I know. I expected nothing less than a misdemeanor quasi criminal act from a full time liar like yourself;. Your welcome to share this "fuck you" with the rest of your conspiracy believing Dumocrats and the disaffected Blacks you have dragged down in the conspiracy sewer with you.
Once again, "FUCK YOU" to you and all your leftist wanna be Commie Socialist anti-American cohorts. Since you like posting in your "I really want to feel important book, feel free to post this last "fuck you" as well..
Thanks for the terrif photos of Baghdad. Do you get your twisted information from the State TV out of Iraq?
KryssTal Reply: The photographs are mainly from Reuters, which is a Western news agency.
The reason I have published them is because the Western coverage is mainly of the West's sexy arms, armchair debates between retired generals and military press conferences. There is very little coverage of the effects of these munitions on the people of Iraq.
As a munitions expert, I can easily tell you that your photos showing what was supposed to be a "missile attack" on a civilian area in Baghdad was not anything of the sort. It is the result of an antiaircraft shell falling back to the ground. Cruise missiles do not strike the ground leaving a crater. If you study history, a good example would be he civilian casualties caused during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nearly all were caused by antiaircraft shells falling back to ground.
KryssTal Reply: There are two issues here. Firstly, if the West was not invading, the Iraqis would not have to fire anti-aircraft guns. If I break in to your house and you injure yourself while trying to defend your property, I am still responsible for your injuries because they would not have happened if I was not there.
Secondly, the UK reporter Robert Fisk found a piece of the missile in the second market bombing. The serial number (30003-704ASB 7492 B) appears to fix the manufacture of the missile to the Raytheon company based in McKinney in Texas (USA). The UK government has rubbished Robert Fisk. In the early 1980s (during the Iran-Iraq war) Fisk published a story about Iranian solders being gassed by Iraq. Because, the West was arming and backing Saddam at that time, he was rubbished by the UK government then as well.
Just wanted to point out a small example of the ridiculous information your website has on it.
KryssTal Reply: I do warn all my readers not to simply believe what they read but to check all facts for themselves. You have done just that and I approve thoroughly of your sceptic stance.
Loved the Iraqi Minister of Info's comments the other day, "They are not near Baghdad." What a buffoon.
KryssTal Reply: Both sides are using propaganda extensively. I always like independent confirmation of any Iraqi or USA or UK claims. Being sceptical should include all information. Here in London, we were told that Umm Qasr was captured in the first day of the war. A week later there was still resistance. Tony Blair said in a news conference that two UK solders had been executed, a claim that had to be retracted a day later. There are other examples.
Maybe you could have his job....
KryssTal Reply: You arguments should stand alone without you having to resort to personal insult. This remark is benieth you as I feel that you have the intelligence to make a coherent case for your views.
I do not think there is any doubt that the USA and UK will win this conflict as their military power is far far superior. The Iraqis have old tanks and no air power after 12 years of bombing by the USA and UK. Let's not forget that the USA spends more on its military than the next 16 countries put together. The question really is the reasons behind the conflict and the one sided way it is being reported in the USA and UK. My web site attempts to redress the balance.
I have never been to Iraq but I have been to Syria and Jordan, countries which are friendly and hospitable. The borders between these two states (and with Lebanon and Palestine) were placed there by the UK and France after the First World War - the people are the same both culturally and linguistically.
Imagine if the USA had been invaded and split into six or seven separate states each with a leader imposed from outside. The citizens of the USA would then feel empathy if another part of their historic country was being bombed by outsiders. This is why the Arab world is so agitated. Jordan has an imposed leader as does Lebanon. Palestine is occupied by Israel (which uses USA weapons in the occupation). Only Syria and Iraq are not controlled by the West; that is why these two countries are being threatened and attacked respectively. Turkey (a friend of the West that also oppresses its Kurdish population), has amassed thousands of troops on its border with Iraq. It is a NATO country so is not threatened but offered aid to keep its troops out.
Again, thank you for taking the time to read my pages and write.
Imagine if you were an Israeli...Please answer the following:
If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history", I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
When was it founded and by whom? What were its borders? What was its capital? What were its major cities? What constituted the basis of its economy? What was its form of government? Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat? Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation? What was the language of the country of Palestine? What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine? What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date. Have they left any artifacts behind? Do you know of a library where one could find a work of Palestinian literature produced before 1967? And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the "low sinking" of "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?
Now, imagine if you lived in the US, and saw your country attacked, as on Sept. 11. Imagine that you see countries which harbor and finance the very organizations which spawned the terrororists (and have done so for years) that carried out these plots. Imagine that one of those countries is ruled by a dictator more concerned with purchasing and developing weapons than improving the lot of his people... A dictator that has refused to abide by terms set forth in agreements from years before. Do you wait to (maybe)be attacked again, or do you decide that (definitely) you will act now to defend yourself? Claims that this is about oil make no more sense than they did twelve years ago. No one in his right mind waits to be attacked....Or allows his opponent to consolidate strength.
"Only Syria and Iraq are not controlled by the West; that is why these two countries are being threatened and attacked respectively".
Oh? Syria is home to Islamic Jihad and Hammas...Lebanon harbors Hezbollah. Don't be confused, friend. Their time will come, too. The message is clear: Harbor terrorists, and suffer the fate of Iraq and Afghanistan.
KryssTal Reply: Ashley,
What I find amazing is this. I get emails from all around the world. The only emails I get with this argument about Palestine and Israel are always from the USA. The emails I get from Israel itself tend to be from people who want to sort out some kind of peace between the two communities.
Most of the countries in the Middle East were created during the 20th century. Syria is an ancient name but the current country came to being, like many in the region, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War 1. Lebanon was carved out of French-controlled Syria at the same time. Jordan and Iraq are British inventions. Palestine was the section lying between these countries and Egypt. Israel was declared a state in 1948.
Is your argument that anyone who lives in a new country that didn't exist before the 20th century should not have the same rights as people living in older countries? There has never been a Kurdistan. Yet over 20 million people speak this Indo-European language. They think of themselves as a separate people and their aspiration is for independence. At the moment they are spread amongst four countries: Turkey (created from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire after the genocide of the Armenians), Syria, Iraq and Iran. Are you saying that Turkey and Iraq are correct in oppressing these people because historical Kurdistan never existed?
Sometimes the reason for a country existing can be very tenuous. In modern Spain, the Castillians managed to dominate the Catalans (who are now part of Spain even though they speak a separate language) but they never managed to dominate the Portuguese (who have their own country). So by your argument, the Spanish have a right to ban the Catalan language and crush any aspirations they might have for self determination. In fact, they did do this from 1935 to 1976.
Most African countries are newly created, many by European treaty. The exceptions include Egypt and Ethiopia which are ancient lands.
As for Palestine - the word is the same root as Philistine. The Arabs pronounce it Falasteen. It, too is an ancient name like Syria.
Whatever the history, the people living in cities like Hebron and Nablus (whatever the region is called or was called in the past) deserve the same human rights as you and me.
What should really have happened after the fall of the Ottoman Empire was that the Arabs formed a nation of their own. This was stopped by France and Britain.
This Arab nation would include the following modern nations or regions: Syria and Iraq (apart from the Kurdish northern parts), Kuwait (which was carved out of Iraq by Britain), Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine (or whatever it is called), Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, northern Sudan (the south is sub-Saharan Africa), Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.
Yemen's Arabic is quite different to the others in the same way that Swiss German differs from standard German, so there is a case for having Yemen as a separate country. The three countries of the Maghreb: Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are more Berber than Arabic so they, too, could be considered a separate country. If, after World War 1, borders had been drawn on cultural and linguistic lines there would be three Arabic speaking nations. Europe made sure that this did not happen as it suited us at the time.
One of the reasons that the Arabs resent the West is because of this history. Britain promised the Arabs independence if they fought against the Ottomans. At the same time they promised the creation of a Jewish homeland. We are still living with the results of these conflicting promises.
On independence most of these countries were given kings by Britain: Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the Gulf States were all given pro-West kings. Libya, Egypt and Iraq got rid of theirs; the others are still there. Britain (and since 1945, the USA) have never encouraged democracy or representative government in these countries. Saudi Arabia (a totalitarian state where dissent is not allowed) is sold huge amounts of arms by the USA and Britain. These arms are mainly used to suppress dissent. This is one of the reasons that the populations of these countries resort to terrorism.
If my country was attacked by terrorists - and it has been by the IRA - I would want to know why. USA foreign policy around the world generates huge amounts of resentment. A poll by USA magazine, Time, was conducted among a quarter of a million people across Europe. The question was "Which country poses the greatest threat to world peace in 2003?"
8% said Iraq
Now it's easy to ignore these feelings and put them down to envy or evil but the world is more complex than that. Look at my list of USA interventions, backing of coups and UN vetoes on:
for a listing of some of the reasons why 11 September happened. When it happened most people in Europe condemned the attacks and sympathised with the people who had died. Very few were surprised, however.
As for the word "terrorists". Israel calls people who are resisting occupation terrorists. I think that England called Americans terrorists before 1776. When the USA funded and armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians, President Regan called him a freedom fighter. When he decided he liked the West as much as he liked the Russians he became a terrorist. When we (USA and Britain) were backing and arming Saddam in the 1980s he was a strong man fighting fundamentalist Iran. When he invaded our client state, Kuwait, he became the Butcher of Baghdad.
Saudi Arabia (which treated women as badly as the Taliban) is a "moderate" Arab state.
Words, my friend, are used to obscure. One thing we Brits know is that when our government gives us a reason for doing something it's not usually the real reason. Remember, both our governments called the South African ANC a terrorist group, and its leader Nelson Mandela, was labelled a terrorist. They were fighting for something that both of us have: one person, one vote.
Freedom fighters and terrorists: to the Nazis the French Resistance were terrorists.
9% said North Korea
83% said the USA.
"What I find amazing is this. I get emails from all around the world. The only emails I get with this argument about Palestine and Israel are always from the USA. The emails I get from Israel itself tend to be from people who want to sort out some kind of peace between the two communities."
Yes. I see how interested the Palestinians are in this when they continually blow up Israeli civilians. Of course, your next response will be something to the effect that more Palestinians have died than Israelis...The US would also like to see a peaceful solution, but a Palestinian State aligning itself with other Arab nations with the aim of wiping out Israel is not acceptable. Surely you cannot argue that the arab states would then accept Israel...?
KryssTal Reply: Since the late 1970s, most Arab states have accepted the two state solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. The Palestinians want the 13% of historical (pre-1948) Palestine that consists of the West Bank and Gaza. Unfortunately, this is dotted with settlements guarded by armed soldiers. Until these settlements are evacuated and a viable Palestinian state is agreed to there will not be peace in the region. Peace, self-determination and security has to apply to both sides. Moderate Israeli and Palestinians know this. Many Israeli soldiers are now refusing to serve in the West Bank and Israeli groups are monitoring the check points to stop Palestinians being humiliated. And yes, more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed.
"Is your argument that anyone who lives in a new country that didn't exist before the 20th century should not have the same rights as people living in older countries?"
No. Is your argument that Hitler was correct in taking Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, et al? Should the people in these countries now riot in the streets and start terrorist camps? Should we have allowed Iraq to take Kuwait?
KryssTal Reply: Hitler taking Poland is not a good analogy of Iraq invading Kuwait. This is because the Germans and the Poles are different people. The unification of Germany in the 19th century is a better analogy for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait because in the former, German people were uniting into one country. As for terror camps - look up the School of the Americas in the USA? Do you know about the Contras destabilaising the elected government of Nicaragua? We've all done it!
"There has never been a Kurdistan. Yet over 20 million people speak this Indo-European language. They think of themselves as a separate people and their aspiration is for independence. At the moment they are spread amongst four countries: Turkey (created from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire after the genocide of the Armenians), Syria, Iraq and Iran. Are you saying that Turkey and Iraq are correct in oppressing these people because historical Kurdistan never existed?"
No. I'm saying that due to current events, they are much closer now than they have been to achieving this. Will they get it? I cannot say (Sort of doubt it, but I would not mind seeing it happen. Have they been treated wrongly? Yes. Who finally tried to protect them (albeit a little late)?...
KryssTal Reply: Do you think the Kurds of northern Iraq will be allowed more self determination if our ally, Turkey disapproves? And anyway, there are twice as many Kurds in Turkey. When I was there in 1986, the Kurdish language was banned. In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger used the Iraqi Kurds to force Iraq and Iran (both then allies of the USA) to come to an agreement and then abandoned them to their fate.
Here is a different question for you (And I will give you this: You are very polite, and I have actually enjoyed our brief exchange, though we differ in opinion); Iran seems rather quiet these days...Seeming to appear to be toning down the radicalism a bit. What is your opinion on this?...I am not really sure what to make of that country. Their President has said on American TV that he "loves America"...Rather stunned us.
KryssTal Reply: Why shouldn't we be polite to each other. We live in a democracy and debate is part of that. The hardest part of living in a democracy is to accept that other people have different views. As Voltair said "I may profoundly disagree with your views but I would defend to the death your right to say them".
Ah yes, Iran.
Iran had a democratic government until 1953. They wanted to keep their resources (like oil) under Iranian control and use the profits to fund schools and hospitals. In 1953, the USA (with help from the UK - still a poodle in those days!) removed the popular and reforming government of Mohammed Mossadeq and replaced him with the Shah (king) Reza Pahlavi. The USA then trained SAVAK, the Iranian secret police which began a reign of terror over that country. The new government allowed USA and British oil companies to develop the oil (the real reason for the coup). In 1979, the Shah was overthrown by the Ayatolla Khomeni.
After 26 years of tyranny the people of Iran were not too pleased with the West for subjecting them to it. Western companies were kicked out. That is why the West then armed and encouraged our friend in Iraq (a certain Saddam Hussein) to invade Iran. Over a million people died in that conflict and most of Iraq's arms were supplied by the USA, UK (on the quiet) and France.
Iran has since had elections and is split between reformers (who want closer ties with the West) and radicals (who remember what the West did to them and prefer to keep us at arms length). The messages coming out of Iran depend on who is making them. Iran is a very nationalistic country - proud and with an ancient history (it is the ancient Persia). As you probably know, they are NOT Arabs. Iran, like many countries around the world, is probably terrified of the USA and wants to keep a low profile but it fears being surrounded by the USA on all sides.
"Hitler taking Poland is not a good analogy of Iraq invading Kuwait. This is because the Germans and the Poles are different people. The unification of Germany in the 19th century is a better analogy for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait because in the former, German people were uniting into one country."
My point was more to the effect that the Poles (Czechs, etc.) were no more willing to be a part of Germany than the Kuwaitis were to be a part of Iraq. Recall that Hitler tried to justify some of his conquests by claiming that he was reuniting (liberating?) Germans in some those territories, though you are technically correct about Poland (I almost hate using the "Hitler Comparison": It is overused a bit, and this is not 1939...).
KryssTal Reply: Analogies have to be precise to make a point. In 1939, Germany used the presence of a minority of Germans to invade Czechoslovakia. This is equivalent to Turkey's invasion of Cyprus in 1974 "to protect the Turkish minority". Turkey is giving several reasons for placing troops on Iraq's northern borders at present (2003): one of them is the protection of the Turkoman minority in northern Iraq. All these are excuses that we can discount.
Germany's invasion of Austria is harder to critisice though. Austria is made up of German speaking people. The country was created after the First World War by the winning allies in an attempt to keep Germany weak. Many, if not all, Austrians welcomed the Germans. This is more like north and south Vietnam or north and south Korea, both countries divided by the West after World War 2.
The island of Borneo is an interesting case of this. The island is split into three countries. There is a tiny Kuwait like enclave in the north called Bruneii. The sultan and country are supported by Britain and is the most oil rich part of the island. We (ie the Brits) carved it out of the surrounding territory. The rest of the northern third of the island is part of Malaysia. The southern two thirds of the island is part of Indonesia. Malaysia was the part that was a British colony; Indonesia was the part that was a Dutch colony. The island people, although speaking many languages, have a common history and culture and yet they are artificially split into three modern countries. Could we blame or criticise them if they wanted to reunify themselves? Something similar is happening in the southern Philippine island of Mindanao which is predominantly Muslim while the rest of the Philippines is mainly Christian. The people of Mindanao have a closer cultural link to Indoinesia than to the Philippines but Mindanao was conquered by the Spanish rather than the Dutch so ended up as part of the modern country of the Philippines. The West, of course, refers to these separatists as terrorists.
Back to Hitler's Germany: Obviously, the Poles (and Jews) opposed the German invasion of Poland. This is an invasion of one state by another to colonise and rule a people who do not want it. Russia's invasion of Lithuania falls into this category. England's invasion and conquest of India is another. As is Spain's invasion and conquest of Mexico. Of course the invader will say they are liberating the country (Germany in Poland) or freeing the workers (Russia in Lithuania) or bringing civilisation to it (England in India) or bringing religion to the heathens (Spain in Mexico). No invader is going to say we want living space and coal (Germany in Poland), or we want a port that stays open in the winter (Russia in Lithuania), or we want the land to grow indigo and spices (England in India) or we want gold and land to settle (Spain in Mexico).
When we (that is the USA and UK) invade Iraq, we too give reasons (liberation, weapons of mass destruction, UN resolutions, etc) and we don't say oil, bases and control of OPEC. I'm afraid this war falls into the above category.
Coming back to Kuwait. This country was not a democracy in 1990. The royal family had been placed there by the British and was now supported by the USA and UK as it looked after our oil interests there. After the Iraq invasion, a USA led coalition went in and liberated Kuwait. The original "government" was returned and the Kuwaitis are still without democracy. All that happened was the return of the status quo. This is one reason why I am sceptical of all this talk about making Iraq democratic.
Of course if you ask a Kuwaiti (who lives in a totalitiarian state) if he wants to be invaded and taken over by Iraq (an even worse totalitiarian state), their answer is very likely to be "no". But if you asked the Arabs (the people not their often Quisling governments) if they want to live as one pan-Arabic state with democratic elections and the right to run their own affairs, the answer may well be different.
"Do you think the Kurds of northern Iraq will be allowed more self determination if our ally, Turkey disapproves?"
No, unfortunately for the Kurds, I think Turkey will get her way. A shame really, as I know that the Kurds are fighting with this in mind... This will probably mean more violence there...But I do not hear anyone from Arab nations lamenting the fate of the Kurds, nor do I hear them condemning Iraq for it's treatment of them.
KryssTal Reply: And in that you are absolutely correct. But before we denigrate the Arabs and think of ourselves as superior, consider this. We now support the Kurds in Iraq because we want to topple the Iraqi government. There are twice the number of Kurds in Turkey. Since the early 1980s the Turkish government has oppressed these people, banning their political parties and even their language (until recently). 30,000 have been killed in Turkey and thousands more have had their villages destroyed. This has been done with arms bought from the USA and UK. The area they live in (South East Turkey) is full of American bases. Our media says nothing about this violation. None of the Western countries condemns Turkey for this action.
Remember a few years ago when the USA and UK leaders (and their wives) attacked the Taliban's treatment of women in Afghanistan? At that time we wanted to remove the Taliban regime from Afghanistan. The real reason for this, incidently, was to do with oil pipelines from Central Asia. The Taliban got most of their ideas from the Wahabi sect that governs Saudi Arabia. The treatment of women in Saudi Arabia was (and still is) similar. Yet, our leaders, who so wanted a better life for women in Afghanistan, said nothing about the similar plight of women in Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International has criticised the West for its "selective use of human rights violations to justify foreign policy". We call Saudi Arabia a "moderate" state. I think "moderate" as used in this context means "compliant".
As for Iran, the US has definitely made some errors there...And most here have always understood on some level the anger from that region directed towards us from Iran. To Iran's credit, they rattle the saber, but I cannot recall any real effort by them to kill Americans (Though there are accusations that they do harbor and train some terrorist cells...but really, I don't hear that so much about them.). Looking back, they even returned all of the hostages back in 1980... I think much there is not actually public knowledge...I hear whisperings that they are actually providing intelligence...I recall an American General once saying upon an occassion of a US pasting of Iraq that Iran was publicly silent, but that privately, he could say they were "smiling with glee".
Though I cannot predict the future, I do not think Iran is soon to be a target. I think that there are some "under the table" dealings there...I would suspect that without some moderation, Syria might want to worry.
KryssTal Reply: There's that word moderate again. Can I make a few more points about another emotive word: "terrorism".
In the 1770s, the American colonies of Britain were being taxed by the mother country but had no political representation. People's political aspirations were being denied. The Americans did not have a voice in the government of their rulers. In desperation they turned to acts of defiance and sabotage. Did they do this because they were evil? Because they were hooligans? Because they had nothing better to do? The British thought so and demonised these people. But the American view is that this was the beginning of the War of Independence. I am British and yet I can empathise with the struggles of the American people at those times. My government was in the wrong. To understand history, you must be able to empathise with others and understand why they are committing the actions that they do.
During the 1960s, Nelson Mandela and the political party, The African National Congress (or ANC), wanted a voice in the running of their country (South Africa). This was denied them. Mandela could not vote in elections because of an abundance of the chemical melanin in his skin: he was black. Any protest was deemed illegal - the laws being passed by representatives of the people who did have a vote - the whites. Neslon Mandela began a series of sabotage and civil disobedience aimed at securing a real democracy with everybody having a vote. He was labelled a terrorist and imprisoned. Under our beloved leader, Margaret Thatcher, the UK supported the South African regime which tortured and imprisoned its opponents. Thatcher's husband had business interests in South Africa so we were told that Mandela was a terrorist. Your Reagan vetoed UN resolutions imposing sanctions against this regime. Now, of course, every leader wants to be photographed with Mandela.
In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon. 17,500 people died. No memorials exist for these people and no minutes of silence are held. Our newspapers did not show their photos or tell us their names or describe their families' grief. They were faceless. During the invasion, several UN resolutions condemning the action were tabled. All were vetoed by the USA. At the end of the invasion, Israel continued to occupy the southern part of Lebanon for the next 20 years. The Lebanese are a poor people with little in the form of arms with which to resist an occupation. The Israelis, on the other hand, have the best military in the region. They are the largest recipient of aid by the USA. The Israeli forces are far too powerful to be faced on open ground. So what do the Lebanese do? Tactically, the way to resist this situation is to use guerrilla tactics and hit and run. This is what groups like Hezbolla were set up to do. After 20 years, the Israeli army was finally evicted. In the eyes of Hezbolla, Israel was an occupying force backed by the USA. Hezbolla was backed by countries like Syria and Iran. The USA backing of Israel was far more effective. The concepts of resistance and terrorism begin to blur.
When a Palestinian suicide bomber strikes (and I oppose actions against civilians), the Israelis identify the culprit and demolish his family's house making women and children homeless. Some of the families know of and approve of the bomber's intentions. Many don't even know. Yet all are punished for the crime of one. This "collective punishment" actually violates the Geneva Conventions but is done on a regular basis. Little warning and no compensation is given to the families who lose their homes like this. Iraq has been known to give financial help to these families. For this, Iraq has been accused of supporting terrorism. The issues are not black and white - they rarely are. Very little of this activity is reported in the Western media although there is a big debate in the Israeli media.
You are obviously well versed in the history of the region...but I cannot agree with your views. Your website seems to be showing only the tragedies from this War. No one in the US doubts that these will occur...It is, after all, War. We hate that civilians will be killed, and it appears that efforts have kept these casualties as low as we could manage...Where are your photos of the tortured and dead Iraqis who died at the hands of Saddam? Where are your photos of those Iraqis your contemporaries said we would kill who, through the carefully carried out actions of our military people, are still walking around alive and well? Where are your photos of the dead Human Shields that the Iraqi Republican Guard used?
KryssTal Reply: Well, Ashley, the web site is called the Acts of the Democrasies and I have defined my parameters at the top of the main page.
These parameters are partly due to a lack of time to be exhaustive. At least I have defined clearly what I am doing.
I only write about non-democratic countries when they are supported by a democracy. Hence you can find descriptions and photos of the Halabja gassings of the Kurds which occurred in 1989 when Saddam was "our man". I tend to work under the assumption that our enemies' crimes will be well publicised by the Western media so I try to emphasise and look at the other side of the coin.
For example, in the Israel - Palestine conflict, the Western media tends to concentrate on Israeli deaths, giving names, photos and biographies of all victims. Even people who are living in the settlements (often described as "neibourhoods") are described as "settlers", a nice word that obscures the fact that the settlements are illegal colonies built on land that has been ethnically cleansed. Palestinian deaths are covered in a single paragraph on an inner page with just a number given and with emotive words like terrorist or militant. I try to redress the balance by giving names to these people and attempting to describe the conditions under which they live - not to encourage terrorism but to help in the understanding of what is happening in the region.
Now, I am not so naive to believe that liberation of the Iraqi people was the only reason for this war...There were many factors present, from violations of UN mandates, to support for terrorist Groups, to continuing development of Weapons of Mass Destruction, to oppression of his people. I think that those of us who support this war have each chosen his/her own personal reason(s) for supporting it.
KryssTal Reply: My main reason for not supporting the war is because I fear that USA dominence of the Middle East will in the end make more enemies for the West. Notice that the general feeling in other Arab countries at the fall of Baghdad was dispair and disappointment. The bombings in Iraq are seen by most Arabs as no difference to the bombings of Gaza and the West Bank occurring at the same time and using the same weapons. As the world sees the spoils of war being seized by American companies, that makes British involvement look a little naive and of course increases hatred for the USA.
I've heard the arguments here that his oppression of his people has gone on under our noses for a long time, and we did nothing about it (or even once supported him). Does that mean that we can't ever change our minds or policy? Shall we just sit on the sidelines and watch? Shall we wait until someone else can do something (...and just who would that be?...The UN?...)?
KryssTal Reply: He was supported by the USA and UK. Read my accounts which cover the main points of Iraq's history and its involvement with the West from 1945. Again, be sceptical about everything you read and look these points up, especially the people mentioned.
You point to other countries that are just as bad in their treatment of their people, and you point out that we are not attacking them as they are "controlled by the west", so why are Saddam and Iraq singled out?... By that logic, we would have two choices: Sit on the sidelines and wait, or attack every country with the same record at the same time. Neither seems very prudent. (We've sat long enough, and we can't take 'em on all at once...).
KryssTal Reply: The ones mentioned on the USA's list of The Axis of Evil are not the best or worse or the most or least dangerous. They are the ones not under Western control.
Let us compare Syria and Saudi Arabia. One is threatened to watch its step, the other is courted as an ally. Neither is a democracy as we understand the term. Both have internal secret police that keep a lid on dissent. Both have supported groups that have targeted civilians: Syria with Hezbolla and Saudi Arabia with Al-Qa'ida. Syria is better with its social policies: women can be veiled or western. In Saudi, women must be veiled and need to have permission of a male relative to travel or have medical treatment. In Saudi, religions other than Islam are banned so there is no freedom of religious worship. Syria has a large minority of Christians who can worship as they please. Saudi allows the USA to have military bases on its soil (something that angers groups like Al-Qa'ida). Syria does not have military bases and it does not support a peace with Israel without the Golan Heights (occupied in 1967 and anexed in 1980) being returned. Saudi allows USA and UK companies access to its oil and resources. Syria does not - not that it has any oil - but there are no American companies running Syria's hotels or its water or its health. For these reasons, Syria is more liekly to suffer Iraq's fate. Oh, other reasons will be found: let's see: human rights (although Syria is not an Iraq in that respect), support for terrorist groups (Syria sides with Palestine rather than Israel), holding Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction (Rumsfeld is already laying the ground work for this one!)
Sept. 11 changed the US. Forever.
KryssTal Reply: And how many September 11th's has the USA inflicted on the rest of the world? 3 million Vietnamese died in the bombing of South East Asia; remember the use of chemical weapons there? Napalm? Agent Orange?
Remember September 11, 1973? Chile's democratically elected government was removed by a CIA backed coup that installed Pinochet, thousands were killed. Remember Central America in the 1980s?
While the USA (and indeed the UK) had a two minutes silence on 11 September 2002, remebering the anniversary of the twin towers attacks, a few days later it was the 20th anniversary of the Sabra and Chatila masacres totally ignored by all the USA media and most (but not all) of the UK media. This massacre of 2000 unarmed civilians occurred after the USA had promised that when Palestinan fighters were escorted from Beirut by USA troops in 1982, their familes would be protected. These events are to the Arabs what September 11th is to the USA.
You may have felt empathy in Britain, but that was not what we felt here. As it was happening, there was a general sense (panic) that it was war, and throughout that day, everyone here wondered "What next?"...I will never forget the drive home that day...people were dazed. I have never been on an American Highway during rush hour when some idiot was not speeding and weaving through traffic...except that day: It was so subdued. You say that Britons were not surprised that we were attacked...I have a bulletin for you: We did not think we were immune. You may have heard that we experienced a wave of patriotism...I will tell you it was unbelievable: I won't forget driving around my city that weekend and seeing people standing on an overpass on the freeway, waving a huge American Flag...And I won't forget the mood. Americans want blood.
KryssTal Reply: Americans have already had enough blood. Look at my page of USA interventions and bombings around the world even before 2001.
We want Bin Laden's blood, but more than that. We want the blood of the other terrorist groups, and their financiers, and the governments that support them. We plowed over Afghanistan. That's one. I believe that Saddam's government fell into this category, among other transgressions. He's two. Maybe he's not the most glaring example, and there were other factors there, but he is AN EXAMPLE. (Hey, Syria, Lebanon...Are you listening? Will you be examples, too?...).
KryssTal Reply: You will not crush "terrorism" while USA foreign policies bring dispair and misery to so many. You should check out Human Rights Watch and Corporate Watch to see the effects of USA military, political and economic hegemony around the world. I can understand that the knowledge of these events is not well known in the USA - when I was there I noticed the lack of inciseful international coverage on the TV and in the newspapers. I thought the UK media was bad until I went there.
We tried to go the UN route. France, Russia and Germany objected. It appears now from some reports that they were each owed a great deal of money by the Iraqi Government, and now they will not be paid...Jacques Chirac is doing France no favors in his demands that the UN must preside over rebuilding Iraq. The US will not stand for it ( I am not certain where Britons sit on this issue...I hear that Blair wants the UN to take a more active role than does Bush). Simply out of the sheer arrogance of Chirac (now seen in the US as the mouthpiece of a pipsqueak country) the people of the US will not now countenance France having anything to do with it (Poland now appears as a true ally and strong people...France as a nation of arrogant fops, unable to see that they play second fiddle, if that, on the World Stage).
KryssTal Reply: France has been made into a scapegoat for the inability of the USA and UK to gain enough suport in the UN security council. Of the 16 members only four wanted to vote for war: USA, UK, Spain (where 91% of the population opposed the war) and Bulgaria (which is recieving large amounts of USA aid to house American bases). Remember, the country which has used the UN veto the most is the USA.
In the UK, Blair's support amongst his own party is dependent on getting the UN more involved. That's one difference between our two countries: we tend to be more confortable with being multilaterist. The USA tends to be more unilaterist. Many treaties are being ignored or dropped or not being signed up to by the USA. This also does not play well around the world. The truth is that the USA can do anything it likes because it is so powerful. I find this uncomfortable. What the long term effects of this on international law is hard to quantify.
Some people say that this war will cause an increase in terrorism. I don't agree. I think terrorism was increasing before the war. We may see some attacks intensify for the immediate present, but we are slowly erroding their bases. In the long run, it will lessen.
KryssTal Reply: This remains to be seen. I hope that you are correct but I fear that you may not be. If these groups want to get weapons of mass destruction they will go via the old Soviet states where control has faltered since the collapse of the USSR. Anthrax and plutonium are all available on the black market according to a documentary on the BBC recently.
You made this point: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - I have heard many of the peace protesters quote this...Yet I wonder if they are thinking about what they are saying, and if the need arose, would they? I see a nation of Iraqis who cannot say what they want, and I don't see the peace protestors laying their lives on the line to defend the Iraqis rights...What I see are British and American Military people doing it for them.
KryssTal Reply: Let's see what sort of governemnt Iraq ends up with. Afghanistam is still suffering from anarchy and warlords. It is a moot point if the Afghans are better off now. All that has changed is that the USA has an agreement for an oil pipeline that it couldn't get from the Taliban.
We all saw those happy photos of Iraqis celebrating the fall of Saddam Hussein. I approve of the fall of any tyrants but there are two points to be made here:
Firstly. Both our governments are taking the credit for the fall of Saddam but neither is taking the blame for supporting him for 20 of his 30 years in power. I would be happier to give credit if blame were as equally accepted. If we hold the moral high ground for removing a dictator then by the same token we must accept the moral low ground for supporting and arming him.
Secondly. I wonder if the Iraqis will still be celebrating when they find out that the rebuilding contracts have been awarded to American companies with close links to the USA administration. these include: Haliburton, Fluor, Bechtel and Parsons. the Iraqis have not been consulted about who they want to rebuild their country. American companies without close links to the Bush regime have been excluded as have UK companies (which is causing problems for Blair). Call me old fashioned but I am of the opinion that Iraq's rebuilding should be decided by the Iraqis themselves. It's a bit like if I firebombed your house and then came up to you saying, "don't worry about it, old chap, my friend does a good line in clearing up fire damage."
Your facts about Deir Yassin are wrong. 25 men were paraded in Jerusalem, not naked women. The number of civilians massacerd is between 140 and 155, not over 300 and there is no clear evidence that rape occured.
An impartial source:
http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/dycg.htm
I suspect you have been victimized by propaganda and that is why yopu have the facts wrong on what is clearly a Jewish attrocity. You are so far off though it makes me want to check the veracity of all your other facts and greatly reduces your effectiveness for many informed readers. Please read this web site and get back to me.
hi there,
first up, thanks for your site, it is tremendously interesting
KryssTal Reply: Thank you very much - I have tried to put a lot of work into it. The only previous response was very pro-Shaton and pro-Pinochet.
secondly, I am trying to piece together a story regarding Net Censorship, and given the general themes of your site I though you maight be interested in commenting. I am also trying to get comments from people like Michael Albert from Z magazine.
KryssTal Reply: Z Magazine is excellent. Oh for more investigative journalism.
I also wanted to find out if you have come under any pressure since the Sept 11 [2001], and subsequent deluge of "war on terrorism" propaganda. I know a lot of the search engines such as yahoo began to sever links to sites sympathetic to (broadly speaking) Arab, Islamic or Palestinian sources, and I was wondering whether you had been affected in any way.
KryssTal Reply: I have never liked Yahoo since they took over the web ring. My site is new so the number of hits is still small but I have found links on various alternative news sites
. Are people actively seeking alternative news sources? Have you noticed an increase in hits to the site? Or is there a sign of a migration to the commercial media?
KryssTal Reply: I do not have enough information to answer that.
Describe the mood amongst independent media sources, are journalists self censoring over the role of US foreign policy in the attack? Have you seen any overt attempts to gag online media sources critical of the US government?
KryssTal Reply: I have not noticed anything online. In the UK, even the BBC tows tha party line. No mention has been made of the 4000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Only the Independent newspaper covers aspects like this.
And what is the role of the Internet in terms of the dissemination, do you think it can be controlled? What would be the consequences of such a move?
KryssTal Reply: Murdoch has attempted to censor the internet for the China market. The internet is irrelevant. Most people in the world do not even have telephones. It's the tabloids that most people read. Control them and you control much opinion.
As I said, I would really appreciate it if either of you could answer these questions and email the responses back to me. If there are any points I am missing, or anything you would like to add please do so. On the other hand if you are unable to participate in the article – I totally understand, however, I ask that you send me a quick email saying as much so that I am not waiting needlessly for a response. If you are concerned regarding the story - I am happy to let you read it before it goes to print (or rather before it goes online).
KryssTal Reply: I would be happy to read anything you send me.
On your facts about Sabra and Chatilla. Not one single Israeli killed any Palestinian there in 82. Sharon had nothing to do with the killings at Sabra and Chatilla. The person who ordered the killings, was Elie Hobeika, not Ariel Sharon.
Right after Sabra and Chatilla, Hobeika switched sides to the Syrians. It was then learned by Hobeika's bodyguard, Roger Hatem, Elie Hobeika was a Syrian agent in the 82 War. Roger Hatem wrote a book called, from Israel to Damascus. You can read the book on his website.
Hatem documents, how Hobeika ordered the killings at Sabra and Chatilla to make Israel look bad, so Syria could control Lebanon. The only reason why the Christians went along with Hobeika's orders, was to avenge the thousands of Christians, who were killed by the PLO in Lebanon and because the Lebanese Christian President Gamayel was just killed by the PLO.
What Hatem documents in his book. Sharon told Hobeika, only to go after the armed PLO gunman in Sabra. Sharon made very clear to Hobeika, not to target any civilians. Hobeika agreed to the orders. Then Hobeika gave his own orders to his men. Kill anyone they see in Sabra. Hobeika did this, to make Israel look bad, so Syria could control Lebanon. If the Arabs are so concerned about the people killed in Sabra and Chatilla, why is Syria and Lebanon protecting the person who ordered the killings. (Elie Hobeika). Why doesn't Syria or Lebanon prosecute Hobeika. Maybe there worred, he might tell the truth. Which is, Hobeika under orders from Assad was responsible. Hobeika and his people are responsible for the people who were killed. Sharon is 100 percent innocent. Keep in mind, Assad put Hobeika in Lebanon's parliament for 15 years.
By contrast, why are so few Palestinian supporters like yourself, not upset that in May 1985, Muslim militiamen attacked the same Sabra and Chatilla area. According to UN officials, 650 were killed and 2,500 wounded. During a two-year battle between the Syrian-backed Shiite Amal militia and the PLO, more than 2,000 people, including many civilians, were reportedly killed. No outcry was directed at the PLO or the Syrians and their allies over the slaughter. International reaction was also muted in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon. In the eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed. Keep in mind, 150,000 Lebanese died during the Lebanese civil war and Syria and the PLO played a major role in the war." Since you like to speak out. Why are you silent on these facts.
Examples of how Arab Dictatorships and Muslim Countries react to violence. When the PLO tried this tactic of riots and violence against King Hussein in 1970. Unlike Israel, Hussein used full force against PLO Terror. In one week, 20,000 Arabs killed each other.
1 million Muslims kill each other in the Iran Iraq War.
1 and half million Black Christians massacred in Sudan, by the Arabs in North Sudan.
In Indonesia, 300,000 East Timories murdered by Indonesia.
Assad Butchers 22,000 of his own people in Hama Syria in 1982.
Thousands of tourists massacred in Egypt since 1992.
125,000 Afghanistans kill each other since 1989
100,000 Algerians have butchered each other since 1992.
150,000 Lebanese kill each other in there 15 year civil war.
Saddam gasses and kills 125,000 Kurds.
Click on this link, to learn what happened to the Kurds.
Pakistan kills 2 million Bangladeshi muslims in 1971.
The PLO kills thousands of Christian Lebanese in Damour Lebanon in 1976.
Syria, Assad in 1980, Jails 600 opposition forces. 6 months later, he tells them, they could all leave there Jail cells. As they leave the Jails, Assad has his military massacre all 600 people. During the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, Iran sent children (holding tickets to Muslim Paradise) running across minefields to clear the way for the Iranian soldiers.
The Arab nations and Arafat in particular cynically use their own civilians as human shields by putting children, women and unarmed men in harms' way. They deliberately enlisted them to become involuntary extensions of their planned violence, especially when the televised 'war' shows children and women as victims and martyrs. Within the 52-year conflict between the Arab nations and Israel, documented history indicates that civilians were consistently used by the Arabs in various ways to advance the war goals of the Arab nations. Civilians were often used as 'Human Shields' just like those the American soldiers faced in Vietnam. The use of civilian Human Shields was fairly common during the six wars initiated by the Arab nations against Israel.
Israel reacts, only after it has been attacked by Arab and Iranian killers. Why is it that the PLO or other terrorist groups, who hide and fire from civilian areas are never blamed? Did i forget to mention, an Egyptian pilot crashes a plane and kills 216 people in 1999.
KryssTal Reply: Thank you for your comments. I will publish them on the responses page even though I do not agree with your main premise about Sharon. I have advised all my readers to check all information so your points and links will be made available to them.
The many cases you mention: the web site is called "The Acts of the Democracies" so unless a non-democratic country is backed by a democracy, it is out of my remit. I do hope to enlarge the site to include religious hypocracy at some future date. You will find that I have described the following:
The Iraq-Iran war because the West was arming and backing Iraq at the time. The gassings at Halabja are mentioned. Indonesia's genocide in East Timor is mentioned extensively as it is backed and armed by the West (especially the USA, UK and Australia). Pakistan's war in Bangladesh is also mentioned.
The story about human shields is a common one used by the West when civilians get killed. As for the USA in Vietnam that was IN Vietnam and not in the USA - the aggressors were not the people living in Vietnam. Remember that each conflict has two reasons: the reasons given by the attackers and the real reasons!
You obviously support Israel (right or wrong) which is your right as we live in a free democracy. However I do not, as you say, "support the Palestinians". If Palestine was democratic and forcing Israelis off their land I would be publicising and writing about the case of the Israelis. If I have the time to extend the web site back to the First World War, I would be describing the terrible crimes committed against the Jews in Europe.
As for Sharon, I would not want to be an enemy of his as he has had a history of cruelty and ruthlessness from the 1940's. Remember that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was talked about long before it happened.
The conflict between the PLO and Israel: one is a heavily armed state (the largest recipient of arms from the USA) occupying the lands of the other and attempting to control all aspects of life in the occupied territories. Asking why the PLO are not blamed is like asking why the French Resistance under Nazi occupation during the Second World War is not blamed for its violence against the occupying Germans.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Yes put my responses about Sabra and Chatilla on your page. You then say,
As for the PLO and Israel, one is a heavily armed state (the largest recipient of arms from the USA) occupying the lands of the other and attempting to control all aspects of life in the occupied territories. Asking why the PLO are not blamed is like asking why the French Resistance under Nazi occupation during the Second World War is not blamed for its violence against the Germans.
I think you need to get your facts right. There was never in history any state called Palestine. The Palestinians never governed or controlled any land before 1993. To make it simple. Please tell me one Palestinian President before 1967. Keep thinking. What you call the West Bank, its real name is Judea and Samaria named after Jews. Here's an article that says the situation perfectly.
The Big Lie by Nader Sloan. 15 Dec 20O2
Palestinians claim that Palestine is their land, and that Jerusalem is their capital, and that Israel is occupying their land. To resist occupation they have the right to send suicide bombers into crowded bus stations, pizza parlors, etc., and kill innocent men, women, and children. And all Arab and Muslim countries support them in their claims and actions against Israel.
Because of this occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, because of this crime committed against their Palestinian brothers, all Arabs hate Israel and want to destroy it.
To anyone who is familiar with the facts, and has an objective eye, all this must be fascinating. Because never before has a complete lie, on such a large scale, been so successful.
First, if Arab animosity toward Israel is based on their love and support for their Palestinian brothers, and in wanting their Palestinian brothers to have their own state, where was that love and support before the Jewish state existed? Where were they when the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt ruled Palestine? Why were they not accusing Jordan and Egypt of occupying Palestinian land? Why did not the Arab world and the United Nations call on Jordan to stop occupying Palestinian land?
Second, where were the Palestinians themselves, with all their grievances and claims, when Jordan occupied the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem? Did you know that? Did you know that for 19 years, Jordan controlled and ruled the whole West Bank, including Jerusalem? Egypt controlled Gaza. Why didn't they clamor for a Palestinian state then?
All this time, did we hear a word about Palestine being occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt? Did we hear anything about a Palestinian state? Or about Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine? No, we did not. Why not? Because their never existed a Palestinian state.
KryssTal Reply: This is an interesting and irelevent argument.
The name of a piece of land does not alter the fact that the indigenous inhabitants of the region / area / mandate territory (whatever we call it) made up a majority in 1948. The Jewish population (most of whom had arrived in the previous generation) made up 33% while the indigenous population (whatever we call them - Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians) made up 67% of the population. So whatever the name of the region or its history, it is immoral and wrong for the newer 33% group to expel 68% of the indigenous group.
The above argument is an attempt to justify.
And in the entire history of nations, Jerusalem was never the capital of any country other than that of ancient Israel and modern Israel. So how can there be a claim on Jerusalem as the capital of a state that never existed?
KryssTal Reply: Are you suggesting that this part of history is airbrushed out of history?
One of the problems here is that so few people know the history of the world. Hence, lies and more lies, repeated often enough, are assumed to be facts. I have heard many scholars, including an Arab journalist, question the very notion of a Palestinian people. What, they ask, makes a people? Well, there are four elements that define a people: language, religion, culture, and cuisine. For example, the Chinese and Japanese are both Oriental. Still, they are two different peoples, because they each have a different language, a different religion, a different culture, and a different cuisine. The Palestinians speak the same language, follow the same religion, manifest the same culture, and eat the same cuisine as all the other Arabs. They are really Arabs who happen to live in a region called Palestine.
KryssTal Reply: Here you have a point.
The Arab lands under the Ottoman Empire should really have been given independence after World War I. There would then have been a state comprising the modern Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine (or whatever we call it) and the Arabian peninsula.
Unfortunately for the Arabs, the UK and French had secretly divided the region among themselves. France got Syria and Lebanon; the UK got the rest and proceded to carve up the Gulf region into a number of smaller states so as to have better control of the resources (mainly oil). This is how Iraq lost Kuwait.
Palestine is not, and never was, the name of a country, or the name of a people. There was never a country called Palestine governed by Palestinians.
KryssTal Reply: Again, whatever they are called, they still deserve human rights.
It is the name of a region – just like Siberia is a region, not a country. There is no Siberian country, nor is there a Siberian people. It is a region. Just like the Sahara is a region, not a country. There is no Saharan country, nor is there a Saharan people. The Arabs living in that region are Libyans, Moroccans, etc., etc. It is a region.
KryssTal Reply: This is not quite true - the Arabs in Palestine have and had lived there (west of the River Jordan) for centuries.
Because Palestine is a region, not a country, England was able to carve out half of it and give it to the Arabs living on the other side of the Jordan River and call it the Kingdom of Jordan. Because Palestine is a region the United Nations was able to divide the rest of it between the Jews and the Arabs living there.
KryssTal Reply: It is a piece of Israeli propaganda that Jordan is really Palestine.
Had the Arabs accepted the United Nations resolution there would have been a newly created Arab state called Palestine. Instead they rejected the United Nations compromise and went to war to destroy Israel. They lost the war. Hence, no Palestinian state.
KryssTal Reply: Imagine you are Mr P and living in a ten bedroom house that you own in North America with your family. I am Mr J, a descendent of the Comanche. The ground where your house is was once a holy area for my ancestors. I am now living a long way away but being persecuted. I decide to leave my persecuters and migrate to my ancestral lands. I come to your door and beg for asylum. You take pity on me and put me up in one of the small rooms in your house.
After a few months one of my relatives comes and I share my room with them. You don't mind because we keep ouselves to ourselves. After many of my people are killed around North America, the authorities in city hall decide that the rest of my family should move into your house; they decide that your house should be "partitioned" with 4 rooms given to me and my family and 6 rooms given to you and your family; the kitchen, bathroom and toilet would belong to neither of us and would be run from city hall. We would both have access.
You would, of course, refuse this idea. It's your house - my ancestors may have lived there centuries ago but you are putting me up and I should live in your house as your guest.
I, of course, accept the plan. If I can get legal ownership of part of the house, I can go on from there.
On the day that the new ownership rules come into effect, I take 5 rooms by force, pushing out your Aunt and cousin from the rooms they were living in. I also take over the bathroom, kitchen and toilet. My friends in city hall recognise my new claim. I would have taken more of your house but your neighbours (The Jordan family) rally round and protect you. You share their resources.
I have friends in the local newspaper. Every time I take a bit more of your house, it is ignored by the paper. Whenever you react against me by attempting to take back a bit of your house, the newspaper publishes details, badmouths you and makes you look nasty and evil.
Eventually, I take over all of your house and confine your family to 2 rooms. I can bar access to the outside and to the kitchen whenever I want. It's your house but you are living like a prisoner in it. Many of your family leave. I get the city hall to pass a law saying that none of your family can return. My family, however, can arrive from other states and move into the house and gain full rights to live there.
You have now lost everything and you are depressed.
Mr Oslo proposes a solution. I am so strong now that you would probably accept the original partition plan even though you still think the house is yours. Mr Oslo's solution is that, you can have control of the 2 rooms that you occupy now. I will have no say in your internal affairs. None of your relatives who have left can return. You have use of the kitchen but I can cut that off anytime I like if you misbehave. You have no say on the painting of the outside of the house. I control the hallway and front door so you'd better behave or else. I wonder how the rest of your family would feel if you signed this agreement?
Here are some cold facts.
King David built up Jerusalem and made it holy city it has become and King Solomon, David's son, built the holy temple. There was only one break, when, 400 years after King David, the Babylonian invaders occupied the land for 70 years. Then, with the help of Cyrus the Great of Persia - yes, Persia - Israel came back to the land, rebuilt the temple, and ruled for another 600 years.
Then the Romans came and ruled the land, then the Crusaders ruled the land, then the Ottoman Empire ruled the land, then the British Empire ruled the land, then Israel returned to its homeland and built a modern Jewish state.
KryssTal Reply: It would be interesting to know who it was that the Crusaders from Europe were fighting with during the Middle Ages. The so-called Saracens were essentially a mixture of Semitic peoples (Arabs) and Indo-Europeans (Kurds - Saladin was Kurdish). Most were Muslim but Christians and Jews lived among them. After the 1600s the area was ruled by Ottoman Turks but Arabic was the language spoken by the common people. Even as late as 1880, only 6% of the population were Jewish.
It was never - repeat, never - a Palestinian state. So what is all this talk about occupied Palestinian land?
KryssTal Reply: You really have airbrushed a people out of history.
They certainly have a right to live there freely and happily. Nobody wants to move them away from their land. But from where comes the right for a Palestinian state? Is it because they live there?
KryssTal Reply: 4,500,000 people from the region (that many people call Palestine) are refugees.
Imagine, if the Mexican-American community in California, whose numbers are greater than the number of Palestinians in the West Bank, decides tomorrow to claim that the United States is occupying their land, because they live there and they want their own Mexican state. Imagine, if when the U.S. government says, "No, you can live here but you cannot have sovereignty, you cannot have your own state," they start sending suicide bombers, shooters, mortars, to massacre innocent civilians into the rest of the country, what do you think would happen? The Taliban and Bin Laden found out the answer.
KryssTal Reply: California actually WAS part of Mexico until the Mexican-American war of the 1890s. That's why all the cities have Spanish names (Los Angeles, San Fransisco, San Diego, etc). And of course if you go back to when the Isralites were previously in Israel (2nd century AD), there were no Anglo Saxons or Spanish on that continent at all. If we all go back to 2nd century borders you'll have to come and join me in Europe!
This is precisely why there was never any suggestion of a Palestinian state; not under the Romans, not under the Crusaders, not under the Turks, not under the English, and not under the Arab Kingdom of Jordan, not until after Israel was again established in its homeland.
KryssTal Reply: Again this does not justify violating human rights. Italy did not exist as a unified country until 1860s. It had always existed as separate city states. Yugoslavia first appeared after World War I. Pakistan dates from 1947.
I believe it is the big lie of our generation and we are all buying into it.
Whatever you believe, don't you think these facts deserve to be raised when discussing Middle East policies?
KryssTal Reply: Everything needs to be discussed but its a convenient myth to say that the land was uninhabited between 120 AD and 1948.
Again, thank you for your comments.
First of all, when you say there are 4.5 million Palestinian refugees. Thats laughable. These Palestinians are in the Arab countries. The Arabs have 21 countries. Its the Arabs who keep them as refugees and refuse to intergrate them in these Arab societies.
KryssTal Reply: Imagine if I came and kicked you out of the USA to put the Comanche, Sioux, etc back (because it used to be their homeland 250 years ago) and moved you to Canada (or New Zealand or Australia, or England). Would you say "oh this is an English speaking country so I'm not a refugee"? What would you say to someone who said: "There are dozens of English speaking countries and only one country for the Cree or Hopi or Apache or Blackfoot".
The reason why the Arabs do this, they want to use these Palestinians for media propaganda. I think you as an Arab supporter should be outraged by this.
KryssTal Reply: Why do you describe me as an Arab supporter? My pages cover many groups of people and countries between 1945 and now. I have just added a new section about Botswana's Bushmen for 2002. Why do you not discuss any other peoples. You appear to have an obsession with one part of the world. Do you have an emotional attachment to the Middle East?
Israel took in 800,000 Jews who were forced out from the Arab countries in 48. Israel did not put them in refugee camps, they intergrated them with the rest of Israeli society. You see, Jews unlike Arabs dont keep there people in Refugee Camps. Then you say, how Jews were moving in Palestinian houses in 48.
KryssTal Reply: But Barry, there are quotes from Israeli's about this:
In 1969, Moshe Dayan (the Israeli Defence Minister) addressing the Israel Institute of Technology admitted:
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
Did you get this information from Bin Laden's cave.
KryssTal Reply: This is classic media or political speak. When somebody puts an alternative view you call them a communist, terrorist, and extremeist or (now) Bin Laden. If somebody agrees, you call them a moderate. It is a non argument.
Every inch of land Jews lived in prior to 1948, was bought legally at high prices in a non existentant country. If the British did not give out a White Paper in 1939, the Jews would have been the majority by 1942.
KryssTal Reply: Ownership of land and sovereignty are not the same thing. If I buy land in the USA, I do not have sovereignty over it.
2nd, the Palestinians have not lived on the land for centuries. 95 percent of the Palestinians are really unwanted Arabs from Syria and Egypt, who immigrated to the land from 1831 to 1947. The Term Palestinians came to be in 1964 by the Egyptian Arafat.
One thing Palestinians have said is "Where were the Israelis when our ancestors were fighting the Crusaders?"