Muslim in Suffer

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem. Assalamu\’alaikum Warohmatullahi Wabarokatuh!

West’s Crimes against humanity

Posted by musliminsuffer on October 4, 2010

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

=== News Update ===

Westernism: the Ideology of Hegemony

By Dr Javed Jamil

Part 20 :  British Imperialism

West’s Crimes against humanity

I want to clarify again that “West” in any of my discussions including this write up means Western power groups particularly the political and economic powers. “West” does not include common people who are the victim of West and Westernism themselves; in fact they are the first victims of the rise of Westernism, the ideology that the Western powers have been promoting.  Westernism is primarily an ideology that is based on economic fundamentalism, meaning supremacy of economics in all affairs, scientific and technological development and its use for global supremacy and the dominance of West through military and non-military means.

The list of West’s crimes against humanity is too long to describe. Here I will just enumerate the major crimes. There are three types of major crimes:

  1. Ideological Crimes;
  2. Socioeconomic crimes;
  3. Political crimes

Ideological Crimes

  1. Promotion of economic fundamentalism as the pivot of all developments. Economic fundamentalism is an ideology that gives supremacy to economics in all the affairs of the world, Capitalism being one of its most dangerous kinds in which the economics are in the hands of a few who become the ultimate rulers of the world.
  2. Development of an ideological system based on negation of God, because God is the biggest problem for economic fundamentalism and monopolization of economic and political power. Till God is there in the minds and hearts of the people, society as a whole cannot be made addict or pervert; addiction and perversions are the beigest money spinners.
  3. Marginalization or privatization of religion. Religion relates to God, it puts restrictions on certain activities that are extremely useful from commercial angles
  4. Development of natural, social and practical sciences in a way that people do not even see the possibility of a New World after the Destruction of the Current world;
  5. Conscious nurturing of a feeling that life is to be enjoyed without fearing for “unknown” consequences if any in the “hereafter” and not giving up temporary enjoyment for future threats to life and society, as damage control can be achieved through “moderation” in activities, use of “safety devices” to prevent unwanted consequences and to go for treatment if the problems emerge even despite “moderation” and “safety devices”.

Socioeconomic crimes

  1. Development of all social, political, scientific, economic and administrative institutions in a way that they all support the cause of economic fundamentalists;
  2. Conscious and planned disintegration of family system through legalization, popularization and glorification of relations outside family system; and creation of hurdles in the way of a proper marriage system between males and females.
  3. Commercialisation of all human weaknesses: drinking, gambling, sex.
  4. Promoting dangerous choices in the name of “freedom of choices” so that these choices can be commercialized to the hilt.
  5. Promotion of individualism
  6. Development of economic institutions in a way that the Economic Disparity continues to rise, with more and more wealth accumulating in the Western countries and there too in the hands of few people;
  7. Fanning desires in a way that people are always ready to spend or invest in Industrial products or industries; and are not able to create their own private assets.

Political crimes

  1. Popularization of Western model of democracy as the only “perfect” model of governance; those who do not adopt it are retrogressive;
  2. Turning Democracy into Corporatocracy where corporate rule through proxy;
  3. Creating conditions that make it impossible for the politicians to do anything substantially damaging to the interests of economic fundamentalists;
  4. Invading, bullying and threatening other countries in the name of democracy, “threat to international community”, international community invariably meaning Western powers and their supporters.
  5. Killing tens of millions in wars and civil wars in the 19th century onwards for the establishment of their political and economic hegemony;
  6. Creating and sustaining Israel for destabilizing Middle East;
  7. Using War against Terror as a ploy to threaten Muslim World and other anti-West nations into submission.

Crimes of Western Powers:

Let us concentrate our attention here on specific Western powers: how they colonized the globe for monopolization of the earth:

British Imperialism

The ultimate source of Westernism is the British Empire that still continues to dominate the word either directly or indirectly through its children. The British Empire ruled or administered by the United Kingdom, had originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height it was the perhaps the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1922, the British Empire held control over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world’s population at the time, and covered more than 13,000,000 square miles, almost a quarter of the Earth’s total land area. British Empire comprised several forms of administered units like dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories Not only did the British Imperialism begin with the expansion of trades; capture of economic resources of the world always remained at the top of its agenda. In order to perpetuate itsinfluence, Britishers:

1.      Invaded countries after countries and occupied them till they earned therir independence either due to their own struggles against the invaders or due to the decline of the Briritish power;

2.      Occupied relatively uninhabited areas, killed their native populations and Britishers occupied them forever later declaring these areas as independent countries;

3.      Wherever they went they used everything good or bad to control the native populations;

4.      They introduced their own language ultimately succeeding in making English the international language of communication ahead of several other languages (Chinese, Arabic, Hindustani) that were originally spoken or understood by much larger population than Britishers:

5.      Introduced their own culture, customs, traditions and dresses;

6.      Introduced their own Legal system everywhere despite its failure to reduce the crime rates

7.      Used the people of the ruled countries in their wars with plenty of deaths.

Economic Hegemony: Oil Control

The use of power to gain economic hegemony is well known. Frederic Clairmon, a well-known researcher on global issues, traces the history of how Britain planned to control oil:

“At the turn of the 20th century, William D’Arcy, financial tycoon and politician, pursuing the advice of his financial associate and empire builder Cecil Rhodes, frantically began his quest for oil in the Persian Gulf. Little did they realize that one of the most dazzling El Dorados in the long and tortured history of British imperialism would soon be born. Geopolitically it would have reverberations well beyond the Persian Gulf region. It was one of the most decisive steps in the march of imperial globalization, accelerating the concentration of capital and the imperialist rivalries that are its normal concomitant. ….

“Well before APOC came into existence, all members of the British ruling class had been big-time investors in the super-lush pickings of empire. APOC added to Churchill’s already immense personal financial spoils and not least to those of the royal family. Not only was it a prodigious source of accumulation for the entire British ruling class but it also fanned the already raging fires of inter-imperialist rivalries. Imperial Germany’s drive into the Ottoman Empire’s backyard was checkmated and pushed back. The Royal Navy successfully blockaded oil supplies to Germany when the war was unleashed……..

“Of crucial strategic importance was that British capitalism had largely ceased to be dependent on the world’s largest petroleum giant, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, slated to become one of its major economic rivals. With huge British government subsidies, that is, the taxpayer’s money, APOC acquired the world’s largest tanker fleet; it came to dominate the entire oil market from pit head to the retail pump. British imperialism was to reap the benefits of its victory over its imperialist rivals in all ways and APOC was one of the vital catalysts in this battle for the conquest of world markets……..

”With the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, British imperialism turned the newly emergent Iraq into a British neo-colony and the private preserve of APOC. In joint ventures with the British Burmah Oil Company, the vast oil reserves of Kirkuk were grabbed and monopolized. This colossus of British imperialism, like its contemporary American counterpart, the United Fruit Company (born in 1898), came to enshrine the rapacity of imperialist hegemony. As with UFC, its corporate existence was to be soaked in blood, political intrigue and manipulation of the highest order. ……..

”The debacle of German, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian imperialism did not lead to the end of imperialist rivalries but rather to intensified drives for enhanced market conquests in the crisis-stricken years and decades that followed. State terrorism, not dialogue, became the exclusive instrument of imperial rule…..

“The killings in Abadan occurred (April 1919) simultaneously with the mass murder in Jallianwala Bagh (Amritsar), India in which General Dyer’s Gurkha mercenaries slaughtered (according to the official count that was grotesquely understated) 279 non-violent Satyagrahis and left 200 gasping for life on the ground. This act of imperial butchery was, in Dyer’s arrogant words, “to teach the natives that the power of the British Empire was not to be trifled with”. But that power would be challenged not only in the Indian sub-continent but universally.”

Ousting of Mosaddeq in Iran

The author traces in details the role of Britishers in Iran at the time of al-Mosaddeq and how they manipulated to control the Oil in the Middle East:

“The spectre of anti-communism was raised. APOC published and distributed thousands of pamphlets fulminating that the party’s blueprint for the overhaul of existing property relations would be an onslaught against Islam. It would inexorably lead, given the corollaries of their policy inferences, to the extermination of the landed aristocracy, the monarchy and private property and wholesale destruction of law and order. Such were the ideological onslaughts that would endure until the ouster of Mossadeq decades later.

“Of great political importance was the election of Mossadeq as Prime Minister by the Majlis, the Iranian parliament, in April 1951. The Cold War had scaled new levels of intensity, as had the anti-imperialist drive in Iran…. The US-backed Syngman Rhee invasion of North Korea (June 1950) was set in motion, but it was successfully checkmated three months later by Chinese volunteers. The war in Indochina had reached a critical phase with the liberation of the frontier areas bordering China in 1949. This spelt the end of the geographical isolation of the Viet Minh freedom fighters. A frontier of 1,000 km had now been liberated. Supplies from the USSR and China would now boost the offensive capabilities of the Viet Minh in Indochina. One of his closest aides told me that Mossadeq took time to study the unfolding events in Indochina notably through his systematic study of the excellent day-by-day reports in Le Monde. His interest or, better still, ideological commitment extended to all of South-East Asia. His battle with imperialism had propelled him into the front ranks of the leadership of the anti-colonial struggle. The nationalization decree and his non-stop daily speeches in town and country gave us a glimpse of a militant who would become one of the greatest anti-colonial speakers of his age. He was ceasing to be an armchair politico.

“The Churchill government and Lord Beaverbrook’s tabloid yellow press in the UK unleashed their venom. Amongst other things, Mossadeq was dubbed a thieving wog, a Bazaari thug and of course a commie stooge. This sustained outpouring of filth did not stop there. The BBC joined the chorus, followed by the Voice of America. The British government engineered a series of repressive measures or, in the contemporary lingo of Hillary Clinton, “crippling sanctions” aimed at toppling the government. It warned tanker fleets that they would not receive payments from British and European banks if they marketed Iranian oil. (The loss of Iranian oil was offset by the boosted production in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. That was comprehensible since Saudi Arabia was a hostile enemy of Mossadeq’s reforms.) ……..

“There was no respite in the offensive against the progressive and nationalist forces led by Mossadeq. The counter-revolutionary putsch was gathering steam. Churchill, who had been in the counter-revolutionary business since 1917 and whose hatred of revolutions and of coloured peoples was legendary, recognized that a bankrupt Britain was incapable on its own of pulling down the Iranian government. He pleaded with Eisenhower, who didn’t need too much urging, in the name of the US-British “special relationship”, to bring down a “monster that was threatening Western civilization”. This was a manifesto of political genocide. It left nothing unsaid…….

” Mossadeq was arrested on 19 August 1953 and hauled before a military tribunal. Treated as a traitor and a criminal, he was tortured and kept in solitary confinement until 21 December. His prison term was subsequently extended to three years of incarceration followed by house arrest until his death in 1967. “Our job isn’t over yet,” boasted Kermit Roosevelt. “The enemy is running fast but we’re running faster. Wherever he goes we’ll hunt him down and kill him.” Once again he was on target.

“What followed in Iran was nothing short of an inferno. The CIA had joined forces with Israel’s Mossad intelligence service that would go on to become one of the founders and manipulators of the Savak secret police force in Iran. It should be noted that Savak as conceived by Mossad and the CIA was a force that combined the institutional attributes of the Nazi Gestapo secret police and the SS military fighting units. Thousands were deported, butchered and disappeared. That was, however, a non-issue for the yellow corporate press. The repression bore striking similarities to Pinochet’s Chile, save that it was on a far vaster scale. The entire nation was blanketed by Savak, which became the highest-paid and most privileged thugs of the Shah’s Anglo-American-dominated empire.

” The ousting of Iranian democracy boosted US imperial hegemony. It would ensure US imperial rule but it also marked the irreversible eclipse of British imperialism that was accentuated after the nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1967.”

What followed is that America used Reza Shah Pehalvi as its puppet till Islamic Revolution led by Khpmein overthrew him. America tried to save him by arranging hisstay in Egypt where he soon died. But America and Britain have continued to do everything in their power to topple the anti-West Iranian government.

Another article, ”International Coalition for British reparations” makes scathing comments on the role of the British Imperialism in the world. Some comments are worth noting:

Systematic erasure of indigenous culture and language

“Any student of world history will tell you that if he had to pick a single nation to pin all the world’s troubles on, Britain is far and away the obvious choice. ….For centuries, its power over its citizens was nearly absolute. By the dawn of the 20th century, it controlled nearly one third of the globe. But while other totalitarian reigns have been put on trial and forced to make amends, the British crown has maintained its grip on power, and so avoided being called to account for its numerous crimes against humanity.

“Modern Britain was founded through the systematic erasure of indigenous culture and language. The English rounded up natives, seized their property, and forced them to relinquish their heritage and take on British language and culture as their own. Anyone who dissented faced extermination. This practice began in Scotland, Wales and Ireland and soon spread all over the world, where the British Empire plundered natural resources and enslaved native peoples then left without building the stable infrastructure or governments necessary for self-sufficiency.

“ The melting of the polar icecaps, the loss of countless plants and animal species, and the imperiled condition of the human race on a planet made poisonous by misapplied technology are all a consequence of British negligence and hunger to accumulate wealth at any cost.

“Most of the worst tyrants in power through the end of the 20th century were put there by the British, or came to power by filling the power vacuum the British Empire left behind.” (

According to Johann Hari’s “The truth? Our empire killed millions”, “the British deliberately adopted policies that caused as many as 29 million Indians to starve to death in the late nineteenth century.” His comments on a book by Niall Ferguson that defends British Empire are worth reproducing:

“This meant, as the serious historian Professor Mike Davis has noted, “London was eating India’s bread” at the height of a famine. They even stepped up taxes on the starving and insulted them as “indolent” and “unused to work”……

“One dissident civil servant, Lt-Colonel Ronald Osborne, described staggering through the horror: “Scores of corpses were tumbled into old wells, because the deaths were too numerous for the miserable relatives to perform the usually funeral rites. Mothers sold their children for a single scanty meal. Husbands flung their wives into ponds, to escape the torment of seeing them perish by the lingering agonies of hunger. Amid these scenes of death the Government of India kept its serenity and cheerfulness unimpaired. The [newspapers] of the North-West were persuaded into silence. Strict orders were given to civilians under no circumstances to countenance the pretence that civilians were dying of hunger.

“When I criticised Ferguson for dedicating almost as much space in his revisionist history of Empire to the slaughter of 29 million people as he gives to a description of a statue of the Prince of Wales made out of butter, he responded primarily with personal abuse, comparing me to a children’s writer

“It seems extraordinary to argue that polite British historians with TV series on Channel Four are apologists for mass murder, as ugly as the Russians who would have us believe Stalin’s crimes were inevitable or justified by the advances in industrialisation he wrought. But the evidence shows that it is true. (

British atrocities in India

Another writer speaks of British atrocities in India:

“Tax collections rose even as millions died of man-made famines. Like Bengal of 1770-72. The East India Company’s own report put it simply. The famine in that province “exceeds all description.” Close to ten million people had died, as Rajni Palme-Dutt pointed out in his remarkable book, India Today. The Company noted that more than a third of the populace had perished in the province of Purnea. “And in other parts the misery is equal.”Yet, Warren Hastings wrote to the directors of the East India Company in 1772: “Notwithstanding the loss of at least one-third of the inhabitants of this province, and the consequent decrease in cultivation, the net collections of the year 1771 exceeded even those of [pre-famine] 1768.” Hastings was clear on why and how this was achieved. It was “owing to [tax collection] being violently kept up to its former standard……

“Between 24 million and 29 million Indians, maybe more, died in famines in the era of British good governance. Many of these famines were policy-driven. Millions died of callous and wilful neglect. The victims of Malthusian rulers. Over 6 million humans perished in just 1876 — when Madras was a hell. Many others had their lives shortened by ruthless exploitation and plunder. Well before the Great Bengal Famine, the report of that province’s Director for Health for 1927-28 made grisly reading. It noted that “the present peasantry of Bengal are in a very large proportion taking to a dietary on which even rats could not live for more than five weeks.” By 1931, life expectancy in India was sharply down. It was now 23.2 and 22.8 years for men and women. Less than half that of those living in England and Wales. (Palme-Dutt.)…..

“ British good governance killed more than those tens of millions in famines. Countless numbers of Indians died in wars waged for, by, and against the British. Over 8,000 died in the single battle around Kut in Iraq in 1916. London used them as canon fodder in its desperate search for a success against the Turks after the rout at Gallipoli. When there were no Indians around, the British sacrificed other captive peoples. “Waste the Irish” was the term used by an English officer when sending out troops on a suicidal mission.

Britain: imperial nostalgia

Britain not only conveniently still forgets the crimes of its imperial past, but it has also again begun to romanticise its colonial achievements and declare them a proper source of pride. Seumas Milne says:

“Barely a generation after the ignominious end of the British empire, there is now a quiet but concerted drive to rehabilitate it, by influential newspapers, conservative academics, and at the highest level of government. Just how successful this campaign has already been was demonstrated in January when Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer and Tony Blair’s heir apparent, declared in east Africa that “the days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial history are over” His remark, pointedly made to the Daily Mail – which is leading the rehabilitation chorus – in the run-up to May’s general election, was clearly no heat-induced gaffe.

Speaking four months earlier at the British Museum, an Aladdin’s cave of looted treasures from Britain’s former colonies, Brown insisted: “We should be proud . . . of the empire” Even Blair, who was prevailed upon to cut a similar line from a speech during his first successful election campaign in 1997, has never gone quite this far.

Brown’s extraordinary remarks passed with little comment in the rest of the British media. But the significance of a Labour chancellor’s support for what would until recently have been regarded as fringe rightwing revisionism was doubtless not lost on his target audience. This is a man who, despite his neoliberal enthusiasms and tense alliance with Blair, has always liked to project a more egalitarian, social democratic image than his New Labour rival. His imperial turn will have given an unwelcome jolt to anyone hoping that a Brown government might step back from the liberal imperialist swagger and wars of intervention that have punctuated Blair’s eight-year premiership. By the same token, his determination (in advance of his own expected leadership bid) to wrap himself in the Union Jack – dubbed “the butcher’s apron” by the Irish socialist James Connolly – will have impressed sections of the establishment whose embrace he is seeking.

Brown’s demand for an end to colonial apologies was part of an attempt to define a modern sense of British identity based around values of fair play, freedom and tolerance. What modernity and such values have to do with the reality of empire might not be immediately obvious. But even more bizarre is the implication that Britain is forever apologising for its empire or the crimes committed under it. As with other European former colonial powers, nothing could be further from the truth. There have been no apologies. Official Britain put decolonisation behind it, in a state of blissful amnesia, without the slightest effort to come to terms with what took place. In the years following the British army’s bloody withdrawal from Aden in 1967, there was little public debate about how Britain had maintained its grip on a quarter of the world’s population until the middle of the 20th century.

That began to change in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Rehabilitation of empire was initially raised in the early 1990s at the time of the ill-fated United States intervention in Somalia, used by maverick voices in both the US and Britain to float the “idealistic” notion of new colonies or United Nations trusteeships in Africa. The Wall Street Journal even illustrated an editorial on the subject with a picture of the British colonialist Lord Kitchener, who slaughtered the Mahdi’s followers in Sudan a century before (4).

Under the impact of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, the cause of “humanitarian intervention” was increasingly taken up by more liberal voices across the western world. While the liberal imperialism of the late 19th century had been justified by the need to spread Christian civilisation and trade, now it was to be human rights, markets and good governance. At the height of the Kosovo war, Blair issued what amounted to a call for a new wave of worldwide intervention based on a “subtle blend” of self-interest and moral purpose. Within a year, he put this “doctrine of international community” into practice in the former colony of Sierra Leone, where British troops were sent back after a 39-year absence to intervene in a protracted, bloody civil war.

But it was the September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington and the subsequent US-led takeover of the former British imperial zone of Afghanistan that finally outed into the political mainstream the policy that had until then dared not speak its name. By spring 2002 Blair’s foreign policy adviser and Afghan envoy, Robert Cooper (now working for Javier Solana at the European Union council of ministers), published a pamphlet making the case for “a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan views” while the prime minister privately argued in favour of military intervention in the former British colonies of Zimbabwe and Burma.

Such political adventurism has had to be at least temporarily reined as a result of the political and human disaster of the Iraq war and occupation. But the more favourable climate for this retro reactionary chic created by western military interventions has been seized by Britain’s conservative commentators and historians, such as Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts, both to champion the cause of the new imperialism and rewrite the history of the colonial past. Ferguson is an open advocate of a formal US-run global empire and his defence of British colonialism, notably in his book Empire as the forerunner of 21st-century free-market globalisation, was clearly echoed by Brown’s praise of the “traders, adventurers and missionaries” who built the empire. Roberts is an open advocate of the recolonisation of Africa and insists that “Africa has never known better times than during British rule”. When the South African president recently denounced Churchill and the British empire for its “terrible legacy” in Khartoum, Roberts blithely told the BBC that the empire had brought “freedom and justice” to a benighted world.

It would be interesting to hear how Roberts – or Brown – balances such grotesque claims with the latest research on the huge scale of atrocities committed by British forces during the Mau Mau rebellion in colonial Kenya in the 1950s: the 320,000 Kikuyu held in concentration camps, the 1,090 hangings, the terrorisation of villages, electric shocks, beatings and mass rape documented in Caroline Elkins’s book Britain’s Gulag – and well over 100,000 deaths. This was a time when British soldiers were paid five shillings (equal to $9 in today’s money) for each Kikuyu male they killed, when they nailed the limbs of African guerrillas to crossroads posts. And when they were photographed holding severed heads of Malayan communist “terrorists” in another war that cost over 10,000 lives.

Even in the late 1960s, as veterans described in a recent television documentary, British soldiers thrashed, tortured and murdered their way through Aden’s Crater City; one former squaddie explained that he couldn’t go into details because of the risk of war crimes prosecutions. All in the name of civilisation. The sense of continuity with today’s Iraq could not be clearer.

Such evidence is a timely corrective to the comfortable British mythology that, in contrast to France and other European colonial powers, Britain decolonised in a peaceful and humane manner. It’s not as if these end-of-empire episodes were isolated blemishes on a glorious record of freedom and good governance, as Ferguson and other contemporary imperial torchbearers would have us believe. Britain’s empire was in reality built on genocide, vast ethnic cleansing, slavery, rigorously enforced racial hierarchy and merciless exploitation. As the Cambridge historian Richard Drayton puts it: “We hear a lot about the rule of law, incorruptible government and economic progress – the reality was tyranny, oppression, poverty and the unnecessary deaths of countless millions of human beings” .

Some empire apologists claim that, however brutal the first phase might have been, the 19th- and 20th-century story was one of liberty and economic progress. But this is nonsense. In late 19th-century and early 20th-century India up to 30 million died in famines, as British administrators insisted on the export of grain (as they had done during the Irish famine of the 1840s) and courts ordered 80,000 floggings a year. Four million died in the avoidable Bengal famine of 1943 – there have been no such famines since independence.

What is now Bangladesh was one of the richest parts of the world before the British arrived and deliberately destroyed its cotton industry. When India’s Andaman islands were devastated by December’s tsunami, who recalled that 80,000 political prisoners had been held in camps there in the early 20th-century, routinely experimented on by British army doctors? Perhaps it’s not surprising that Hitler was an enthusiast, describing the British empire as an “inestimable factor of value”, even if it had been acquired with “force and often brutality””

A commentator has become sentimental when talking of the crimes of British Empire:

“I cannot understand why God has allowed the British people to get off scott free when it comes to the crimes of the British Empire. England the biggest component of that empire screwed up a lot of innocent people countries starting with African nations then moving on to Islamic ones. the middle east is in a mess because of the British empire and her allies carving up once homogeneous societies into cress cross of different ethnic/ideological groups forced to live together in an alien society. Instead of leaving various tribal/ethnic groups to workout their problems over time. You jumped in and created a new reality, thus denying them a chance to naturally develop on there own.
The crimes of the British Empire are too enormous for words. Killing off a potential civilization or societies that are talented simply because they do not fit your ethnic Darwinism world view of man & races. What the Empire had done first to Africa and then too the middle east is something that God will judge in the future. Atlantis sunk to the bottom of the ocean in a single night of misfortune, due to her warmongering ways. I wonder if the same fate awaits the British Isles.  “

Wars in last 150 years: British Contribution

If we look at the history of wars, the following figures reflect the amount of violence caused by the Britishers directly or indirectly:
1899-02: British-Boer war (100,000)
1914-18: World War I (8 million)
1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese
1947: Partition of India and Pakistan (1 million)
1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars (70,000)
1969-02: IRA – Northern Ireland’s civil war (2,000)
1976-83: Argentina’s military regime (20,000
1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500)
1991: Gulf War – large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
1999: Kosovo’s liberation war – NATO Vs Serbia (2,000)
2001: Afghanistan’s liberation war – USA & UK Vs Taliban (25,000)
2002-: Cote d’Ivoire’s civil war (1,000)
2003: Iraq’s liberation war – USA, UK and Australia Vs Saddam Hussein (14,000)
2003-: Iraq’s civil war (100,000)

Then onwards: at least 1 million Iraqis dead

British Colonisation of America and Australia: Decimation of Natives

British colonization was also responsible for widespread migration related problems: Wikipedia’s account is shortly summed up below:

“Political boundaries drawn by the British did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions, contributing to conflicts in Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. The British Empire was also responsible for large migrations of peoples. Millions left the British Isles, with the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand coming mainly from Britain and Ireland. Tensions remain between the white settler populations of these countries and their indigenous minorities, and between settler minorities and indigenous majorities in South Africa and Zimbabwe. British settlement of Ireland has left its mark in the form of divided Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland. Millions of people moved to and from British colonies, with large numbers of Indians emigrating to other parts of the Empire. Chinese emigration, primarily from Southern China, led to the creation of Chinese-majority Singapore and small Chinese minorities in the Caribbean. The makeup of Britain itself was changed after the Second World War with immigration to the United Kingdom from the colonies to which it was granting independence.


British colonization of the Americas (including colonization sponsored by the Kingdom of England before the 1707 Acts of Union created the Kingdom of Great Britain) began in the late 16th century and reached its peak when colonies had been established throughout the Americas. The British were one of the most important colonizers of the Americas, and their American empire came to rival the Spanish American colonies in military and economic might.

This British colonization caused dramatic upheaval among the indigenous civilizations in the Americas, both directly through British military force and indirectly through cultural disruption and introduced diseases. Relations between the colonists and natives varied between trade and conflict. Many of the indigenous societies had developed a warrior class and had a long history of warfare. The rapidity, silence, and ferocity of their war parties proved devastating against the colonial-style of waging war but the colonials generally emerged successful in the long term. Like the French, trade with the natives was an important part of British colonial policy but the British also heavily promoted settlement and development.”

. Britishers entered Australia, killed hundreds of thousands of aborigines there and occupied their country forever. “Report details crimes against Aborigines” by Brett Stone, 7 September 1999, describes gory details of the extermination of aborigines. It says:

“The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present…..Aborigines were forced out of their traditional homes, hunted like wild animals, poisoned or shot, and confined to the harshest and most desolate climes. The effect of British settlement upon these people led to near extinction within 120 years….Even though no official figures exist, estimates of the Aboriginal population in 1788 range between 250,000 and 750,000. By 1911 the number was 31,000…..….Aboriginal children were abducted for use in forced labour, women were raped and tortured and given poisoned flour, and the men were shot…Between 1829 and 1834, an appointed conciliator, George Robinson, collected the surviving remnants: 123 people whom were then settled on Flinders Island. By 1835, between 3,000 and 4,000 Aborigines were dead….Between 1824 and 1908 approximately 10,000 Aborigines were murdered in the Colony of Queensland. “Considered ‘wild animals’, ‘vermin’, ‘scarcely human’, ‘hideous to humanity’, ‘loathsome’ and a ‘nuisance’, they were fair game for white ‘sportsmen’….…Aboriginal people met him (Archibald Meston)  “like hunted wild beasts, having lived for years in a state of absolute terror”. His prescription for their salvation lay in “strict and absolute isolation from all whites, from predators who, in no particular order, wanted to kill them, take their women, sell them grog or opium”. Needless to say, none of the perpetrators of the slaughter were made to answer for their actions.”

Even today aborigines are kept in good humour through free supply of intoxicants.

Similarly brutal atrocities were reserved for native Americans who were killed in thousands by Europeans and their country permanently occupied. A website, Ken Hope’s Home Page says,

“…De Soto is described by a contemporary as “fond of the sport of killing Indians.” Natives are captured in the hundreds and forced to march in chains, carrying stores. He kidnaps a native chief known as Queen Cofitachequi, and plunders a case of worthless mussel pearls from her. …By now, epidemics brought by Europeans have killed almost half of the native population of Mexico.  According to historians (See From Revolution to Reconstruction on Net), in 1600 AD, there were about 40 million people living in the Western Hemisphere that now forms North America. In the region that forms the US now, estimates say that up to 18 million native Indians lived. Majority of them was killed either in numerous wars and skirmishes with Europeans or through Chicken Pox and other epidemics brought by them.”

Sent By global-right-pat On: October 3, 2010 8:15 PM On Behalf Of doctorforu123


-muslim voice-

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: