Wednesday, September 10, 2014

They Hate Us For Our Freedom

And they are a pack of insane, violent murderers because of their religion.  That's pretty much it, right?  People in the Middle East wouldn't have any other reason to hate us or be suspicious of us, because we are Western Civilization, the best thing that has ever happened in the whole universe.

No reason to hate us at all, except maybe for a few irrelevant issues like this:

Egypt:

"The French Campaign in Egypt and Syria (1798–1801) was Napoleon Bonaparte's campaign in the Orient, ostensibly to protect French trade interests, undermine Britain's access to India"

And then:

"The Anglo-Egyptian War occurred in 1882 between Egyptian and Sudanese forces under Ahmed ‘Urabi and the United Kingdom. It ended a nationalist uprising against the khedive Tewfik Pasha and vastly expanded British influence over the country, at the expense of the French."

More:

"...by 1882 Islamic and Arabic Nationalist opposition to European influence and settlement in the Middle East led to growing tension amongst notable natives, especially in Egypt which then as now was the most powerful, populous, and influential of Arabian nations.  
A large military demonstration in September 1881 forced the Khedive Tewfiq to dismiss his Prime Minister and rule by decree. Many of the Europeans retreated to specially designed quarters suited for defence or heavily European settled cities such as Alexandria. 
Consequently, in April 1882 France and Great Britain sent warships to Alexandria...when the British succeeded in defeating the Egyptian Army at Tel El Kebir in September and took control of the country to the 1952 Egyptian revolution which made Egypt a republic and when British advisers were expelled.

Morocco:

"Two times in the decade before WWI, disputes over Morocco ignited extremely dangerous European crises. 
Germany felt threatened by the loose alignment between France and Britain.  Twice, Berlin came up with the scheme of deliberately provoking a crisis by challenging the growing French influence in Morocco, hoping to humiliate France and force it to break off its association with Britain.  Both times, the plan backfired - ties between France and Britain were strengthened, and Germany was left more isolated than ever.  Although war was narrowly avoided in 1905-1906 and in 1911, both of the Moroccan Crises sharply ratcheted up European tensions and helped bring on the First World War."

Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Palestine:

"The Sykes–Picot Agreement, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposed spheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I... 
The agreement effectively divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of future British and French control or influence...Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising the coastal strip between the sea and River Jordan, Jordan, southern Iraq, and a small area including the ports of Haifa and Acre, to allow access to the Mediterranean.[6] France was allocated control of south-eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.[citation needed] Russia was to get Istanbul, the Turkish Straits and the Ottoman Armenian vilayets"

Sudan

"With the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, Egypt and Sudan's economic and strategic importance increased enormously, attracting the imperial attentions of the Great Powers, particularly the United Kingdom. Ten years later in 1879, the immense foreign debt of Ismail Pasha's government served as the pretext for the Great Powers to force his abdication and replacement by his son Tewfik Pasha. The manner of Tewfik's ascension at the hands of foreign powers greatly angered Egyptian and Sudanese nationalists who resented the ever-increasing influence of European governments and merchants in the affairs of the country. The situation was compounded by Tewfik's perceived corruption and mismanagement and ultimately culminated in the 'Urabi Revolt. With the survival of his throne in dire jeopardy, Tewfik appealed for British assistance. In 1882, at Tewfik's invitation, the British bombarded Alexandria, Egypt's and Sudan's primary seaport, and subsequently invaded the country. British forces overthrew the Orabi government in Cairo and proceeded to occupy the rest of Egypt and Sudan in 1882. Though officially the authority of Tewfik had been restored, in reality the British largely took control of Egyptian and Sudanese affairs until 1932. 
Even when the British ended their occupation of Egypt in 1936 (with the exception of the Suez Canal Zone), they maintained their forces in Sudan. Successive governments in Cairo, repeatedly declaring their abrogation of the condominium agreement, declared the British presence in Sudan to be illegitimate...It was the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 which finally set a series of events in motion which would eventually end the British occupation of Sudan."

Iran:

"...in 1905-1906, Persia had the first democratic revolution in Asia.[43] Known as the Constitutional Revolution, massive popular protests forced Mozzafar-e-din Shah to allow for the Constitution of 1906, which limited his powers. It allowed for a democratically elected parliament Majlis to make the laws, and a prime minister to sign and carry them out. 
The Constitutional Revolution was opposed by the British and Russians, who attempted to subvert it through the backing of Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar (the son of Mozzafar-e-din Shah), who tried to break up the democratic government by force. A guerrilla movement led by Sattar Khan deposed him in 1910."

And later, of course:

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project). 
Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to change the terms of the company's access to Iranian oil reserves. 
Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s: a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a central tool of continued British imperialism in Iran. Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, the AIOC was unwilling to allow Iranian authorities to audit the company accounts or to renegotiate the terms of its access to Iranian oil. In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist party the National Front. In response, Britain instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically. Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the British-built Abadan oil refinery, then the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Winston Churchill and the Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government, though the predecessor Truman administration had opposed a coup.  Classified documents show that British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that the AIOC contributed $25,000 towards the expense of bribing officials. 
As a condition for restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company... five American petroleum companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were to draw Iran's petroleum after the successful coup d'état—Operation Ajax. The Shah declared this to be a "victory" for Iranians"

Libya

"The History of Libya as an Italian colony started in 1911 and was characterized initially by a major struggle with Muslim native Libyans that lasted until 1931. During this period, the Italian government controlled only the coastal areas of the colony. 
After the Italian Empire's conquest of Ottoman Tripolitania (Ottoman Libya), in the 1911–12 Italo-Turkish War, much of the early colonial period had Italy waging a war of subjugation against Libya's population. Ottoman Turkey surrendered its control of Libya in the 1912 Treaty of Lausanne...After prolonged discussions through the 1920s, it was not until 1935 that the Mussolini-Laval agreement was reached and Italy received the Aouzou strip that was added to Libya..."

Algeria:

"French Algeria lasted from 1830 to 1962, under a variety of governmental systems. From 1848 until independence, the whole Mediterranean region of Algeria was administered as an integral part of France...The conquest of Algeria was initiated in the last days of the Bourbon Restoration by Charles X, as an attempt to increase his popularity amongst the French people, particularly in Paris, where many veterans of the Napoleonic Wars lived. His intention was to bolster patriotic sentiment, and distract attention from ineptly handled domestic policies by "skirmishing against the dey".

Afghanistan, Pakistan:

"The Great Game" was a term for the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia.[1] The classic Great Game period is generally regarded as running approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. A less intensive phase followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917."
Here's a crude map of all of this:


I'm sure I've missed some countries, but everyone's patience must be pretty well exhausted at this point.  Let me make just one observation about all of this:  Whenever motivations for this behavior are recorded, the interests of the people there are never, ever mentioned.  It was all about what was good for the European powers, and later the United States.

We've been involved in the morass of the Middle East for a good part of all of our lives, and yet after all the waste of lives and money, it is still essentially taboo in this country to mention a single bit of what is above.  So instead, the battle cry remains "they hate us for our freedom."  How long do you think it will take for that kind of thinking to result in finding a way out of the violence over there?

11 comments:

Magpie said...

“As a condition for restoring the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company... five American petroleum companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and the Compagnie Française des Pétroles, were to draw Iran's petroleum after the successful coup d'état—Operation Ajax.”

THAT example, at the very least... should be discussed in all its implications and consequences at some point in every high school.

Lev said...

None of the land belongs to the Arabs, especially not "Palestine."

Algeria should belong to the French, as they settled it. As someone once said, "let me remind you that throughout the history of civilization, nomadic people have not been recognized to have ownership of the land over which they pass. And that includes all Arabs." The Arabs have no claim to Algeria, for they were just passing through.

They have no claim to the areas occupied by Europeans, for they were just passing through. All Arabs are nomads.

And they especially have no right to the Land of Israel, for the land belongs to the Jews.

When you describe the "coastal strip between the sea and the River Jordan" as an "Arab province," you're saying that Israel properly belongs to the Arabs, and you sound just like stupid Sam.

Are you trying to be an anti-Semite?

Lev said...

They don't hate us because we interfere with their lands. They hate us because we're pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, and because they're a bunch of murderous racists.

Hitler interfered in the Arab lands, just like England and France. The Nazi armies went into Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and part of Egypt. You say they should hate Hitler because of this. But the Arabs adore Hitler, because he killed more Jews than those stupid Muslims could ever dream of.

That's why they hate us. It's not because of military actions. It's because they're anti-Semitic bigots.

Green Eagle said...

Lev, I must say I am really stunned by your comments.

Let's go through your arguments:
All Arabs are not nomads. Throughout the Middle East there were settled Arab communities like Beirut, Damascus, Jaffa, Akko, and on and on, many in existence when Europe itself was still largely inhabited by nomads. You must be aware of this, so I have to chalk your remark up as sheer propaganda without regard to the truth. The Ottoman Empire was known for keeping detailed records of property ownership throughout its territories, for tax purposes, so it cannot even be said that it was unclear who owned the land. Yes, for hundreds of years, Jews were not permitted to own land, but that does not change the fact that settled Arab communities existed.

If the land of Israel belongs to the Jews, that does not mean that Arabs do not have the right to live there, as close to two million of them do, as full Israeli citizens.


France did not "settle" Algeria. Algiers has a long history, and perhaps you have forgotten about Carthage, which was a great city before France existed. Human settlement in Algeria goes back well into the neolithic age.

I did not describe "the coastal strip between the sea and Jordan," I quoted someone who did, and if you think that area did not have a previous existence as a vilayet of the Ottoman Empire, you need to learn some history.

I am particularly appalled that you could just block out the entire content and thrust of my post- that there is an almost endless history of Middle Eastern and North African areas being conquered and used for their own advantages by Europeans and Americans. The indigenous people of that area have immense reasons to be suspicious and hostile toward us, and our refusal to recognize that fact is a huge factor in the hostility which they have toward us today.

And finally, let's dispense with your inevitable gratuitous reference to Hitler. Arabs sided with Germany in World War I and World War II. This is not because they knew any more about Nazis than the average American knew about Sunnis and Shias before 9-11. What they did know about was their long depradation by England and France, so naturally they tended to side with the enemy of England and France, in much the same ignorant manner that the United States has used to pick its friends in the Middle East.

Zog II said...

Point Number 1.

"Let me remind you that throughout the history of civilization, nomadic people have not been recognized to have ownership of the land over which they pass. And that includes all Arabs."

Is the person who originally said that a great thinker, or is that person an anti-Arab bigot?

Point Number 2.

Carthage is in modern-day Tunisia.

Lev said...

"Throughout the Middle East there were settled Arab communities like Beirut, Damascus, Jaffa, Akko, and on and on, many in existence when Europe itself was still largely inhabited by nomads. "

Damascus has been around for thousands of years. When it was established, the Arabs were still wandering around the desert.

"perhaps you have forgotten about Carthage, which was a great city before France existed. Human settlement in Algeria goes back well into the neolithic age."

Carthage was established by the Phoenicians, not the Arabs who were desert nomads then. Then the Romans took over after a war of aggression. Hannibal attacked Rome with elephants, so Rome had the right to take over Carthage, like Poland had the right to take over Silesia after World War II.

French is descended from Latin, so they are the heirs of the Romans, so they were only getting back what is theirs when they went into Algeria.

" The indigenous people of that area have immense reasons to be suspicious and hostile toward us, and our refusal to recognize that fact is a huge factor in the hostility which they have toward us today."

The Arabs aren't from Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and especially not "Palestine". They were roaming around the Arabian peninsula's desert until the 600s, until Mohammed the murderer organized his barbarian hordes. They arrived in Iraq and Egypt and Algeria and Spain, killed the people who were already there, and stole what was left. The Spaniards drove them out of Spain, and we ought to drive the Arabs out of Egypt and return it to the Copts, who owned.

You didn't mention a single Arabian country like Saudi Arabia and Oman. The Arabs in all the countries you mentioned are there because they stole it from their real owners.

You knew all this when you talked about Israel, which was good. Why do you deny it now?

Magpie said...

“Hannibal attacked Rome with elephants, so Rome had the right to take over Carthage”

Hilarious. Do you think he flew elephants into the seven hills? Hannibal was actually active in the second Punic War. Rome had already won the first one, which was over their assistance to Italian mercenaries who had hijacked a city in Sicily. He died decades before the Third Punic War in which Carthage was finally conquered by Rome. Had he still been alive he would have been about 100 years old.
By the way, if you attack me with your poodle do I get to keep your house?

“French is descended from Latin, so they are the heirs of the Romans, so they were only getting back what is theirs when they went into Algeria”

Most European languages have borrowings from Latin. Are you saying Rome should be in France instead of Italy?
Rome conquered much of western Europe, including the southern half of Britain. Does that all belong to France too?

This is not a computer game.

I had wondered if you were being farcical and just sock-puppeting. Do you really believe what you write?

Lev said...

If someone starts a war against you, and you occupy land in the process of defeating them, you should get to keep that land. Green Eagle used the examples of Germany having to give up land after World War I and World War II. Germany attacked other countries, and the other countries took land from the aggressors after the war. Arabs attacked Israel, so Israel gets to keep the lands it gained.

http://largegreenbird.blogspot.com/2014/07/transfer-of-territory-and-populations.html

Carthage attacked Rome with those elephants, so Rome gets to fight back and keep what they gained.

"Are you saying Rome should be in France instead of Italy?
Rome conquered much of western Europe, including the southern half of Britain. Does that all belong to France too?"

A man can have several sons, and they all get to be heirs. The French get France, the Italians get Italy, and Spanish get Spain, and the Portuguese get Portugal.

The Arabs were invaders who drove out the people of North Africa. Thieves don't get to keep the stuff they stole. They stole Algeria, so they have no right to keep it. Thus, it's open to anyone who can settle it. The French settled it, therefore they should have gotten to keep it.

Besides, the Arabs are all nomads. Green Eagle said so himself.

http://largegreenbird.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-industrial-revolution-and-rights-of.html?showComment=1407082059474#c9031223905922349725

When he talks about Israel and the Arabs, he's smart, not like my stupid cousin. Israel's my home, and I'm going to live there someday. We need defenders like Green Eagle.

I'll have you know I'm smart, too. My teachers say so, and I have the grades to prove it. Straight A's.

Green Eagle said...

Well, let's try to sort this out.

"f someone starts a war against you, and you occupy land in the process of defeating them, you should get to keep that land."

In some cases, land transfer is acceptable. I will note that the German lands given up after World Wars I and II (Alsace, the Sudetenland, etc.) were taken by Germans, Alsace Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian war, and the Sudetenland earlier in World War II. In neither case was Germany stripped of land it hadn't taken by hostility. This would apply to the West Bank, which was taken by Jordan in 1948, and was never a legitimate part of Jordan.

Now, in regard to your comments about Rome: Let us remember that the country we know today as Italy has (as has Germany) a unified existence going back no farther than 1870 or so. Even then, the borders were flexible, as exemplified by the transfer of the area around Nice to France in exchange for land in Piedmont, and French support of Italian unification. In both the Italian and German cases, this unification was the product of popular sentiment, not military conquest, and therefore was legitimate.

I never, ever said all Arabs are nomads. That is clearly not true. And if Arabs "drove out the people of North Africa" it was long before, say, Europeans drove out the indigenous people of North America. To justify colonialist butchery on that ground is malicious in the extreme.

"A man can have several sons, and they all get to be heirs." Not in countries that practice primogeniture. Even that assertion of yours is way off the mark. Where money is split up, note that titles go to the eldest son only. Not all of the sons of a Duke get to be a Duke.

" Israel's my home, and I'm going to live there someday." Well, I have lived there, and I do not think that a person with your attitudes is going to be an asset to them. And finally, I will accept your self-categorization as smart, but this isn't about being smart. The disinformation surrounding Israel outweighs the truth by about a thousand to one, and it is a very long task to learn to sort one from the other. I've been the victim of various delusions, such as the notion that all of the Arabs who left Israel in 1948 did so of their own free will, which I was taught when I was young, or that Arabs face no discrimination in Israel. Yes, the preposterous lies on the other side are far greater, but to achieve any real knowledge of the Middle East is a long process.

Lev said...

What books do you recommend?

The late Meir Kahane was the best. 99.99% of Arabs hate Israel, and 99.99% of Arabs will always hate Israel. The only way for Israel to survive is to:

a) Annex the West Bank and Gaza, in order to provide enough land to protect itself, and
b) Expel the Arabs, or, at the very minimum, keep the majority of them without political rights.

If you grant the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza rights, they will join with the ones in Israel and immediately vote for a second Holocaust, turning my home into a death trap.

Israeli leaders recognize this truth.

Here's Knesset deputy speaker Moshe Feiglin's seven-part plan: Ultimatum, Attack, Siege, Defense, Conquer, Eliminate, Sovereignty.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326#.VBNqeOfQcWg

He wants to conquer Gaza and remove most of the Arabs there. Is he wrong? No. He's come to realize that Kahane's program is right.

Here's another MK, Ayelet Shaked, quoting the late Uri Elitzur, one of Netanyahu's speechwriters.

“All are enemy combatants, and all have blood on their heads. Now it also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They need to follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They need to go, as does the physical home in which they raised the snake. Otherwise, they’ll raise more little snakes there.”

Describes Gaza perfectly.

My cousin told me to look at them, and I don't see what the problem is. I think I'd fit in perfectly well in a country where Feiglin and Shaked and Elitzur are leaders.

But if you have recommendations, I could give them a try. She told me to look at your website. That's the only smart thing she's done.




Green Eagle said...

As I have mentioned before, my number one recommendation is "Innocents Abroad," written in the late 1860's by a person with no reason to favor either side, Mark Twain. He describes his time in the Middle East and relates what was there in some detail. He describes (at least in the area now occupied by Israel) a land that was largely, but not entirely depopulated, with Arab settlements that had been there for some time, but also with Jews who had managed to return there despite the opposition of the Ottoman government. I think this easy read is a good starting point to sorting out what has really gone on there.

By the way, Meir Kahane was an extremely evil person, and the minute you mention him positively, decent people pretty well tune out.