Britain's Cowardly Crimes

Britain's history is littered with cases of genocide, particularly in the Indian sub-continent and in Africa and in addition, many of the problems facing the world today can be traced back to British imperialism. I write this of course being English , but I wish to assure everyone that the British history being taught to children in British schools doesn't mention these facts, it's only when you get older that the brutal truth becomes apparent.

Michael



Three such cowardly crimes stand out from all others, and everyone with a British connection should be ashamed of each and every one of them.

Going along with the U.N. plan for the partition of Palestine - 1947-1948

During the First World War, after the nefarious and imperialistic Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916 between Britain and France to carve up the Arab Provinces of the Ottoman Empire into zones of influence to be attributed to each of these two states, and the even more cowardly and treacherous Balfour Declaration of the following year, Britain had a responsibility towards the people of Palestine to protect them from invasion by foreigners who wished, above all, to get rid of them and take over their land. Having once taken over a League of Nations Mandate of the country, Britain had a duty of care towards the people who had never been permitted to have any say in their own fate during the Versailles Conference in 1919.

In 1947, when the supposedly "Great" Powers were deciding how to carve up the world into zones of influence, the part of Palestine occupied by those who claimed (under the Hitlerian definition) to be Jews amounted to about 7% of the total area of the country, and the remaining 93% was occupied by and belonged to Muslim and Christian Arabs. Amazingly, the plan put forward by the United Nations provided for the country to be divided into two separate states each comprising nearly half of the total area, with an international zone comprising Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings. If Britain had shown itself to be honourable, it would immediately have vetoed that plan, and insisted that any break-away "Jewish state" was limited to the lands already occupied by those who claimed to be "Jews", approximating 7% as already mentioned. The cowardice arose from the acceptance of this very obviously grossly unfair division because Britain wished to escape from the Zionist terrorism which it had itself nurtured by the lethal mixture of its past colonial greed for influence and its abject submission to Zionist pressures in Britain and in the world in general.

The Arab world will never forget this betrayal of trust, whereby Britain left a peaceful reasonably prosperous people at the mercy of waves of well-armed foreign invaders who were determined to get rid of the indigenous inhabitants by the most brutal ethnic cleansing, which continues to this day. If Britain had had the slightest sense of honour, it could have saved the whole world from Zionist racism and the continuing suffering of the Palestinians people for which it had taken on responsibility.

Dividing the former Raj into India and Pakistan - 1947-1948

The great Indian leader, Mohandas Gandhi (known as the Mahatma), planned with his colleagues in the Congress Party a multi-faith India to take over the whole of the former Raj, whether the states in question were ruled directly by Britain or through their local hereditary princes. Intolerance, in the form of the Muslim League under its leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had been on the increase for many years, and the League found it easy to blackmail Britain into agreeing to a partition of India to put the most easterly and westerly areas under Muslim rule. This partition caused terrible slaughter as tensions rose between Hindu and Muslim masses, and the division was entrusted to ignorant British surveyors, and included the highly arbitrary division of both Bengal in the east and the Punjab in the west between the two new states. The princely states were supposed to be allowed to choose to which to belong, but this depended on the ruling house and was abandoned in states where there was a Muslim ruler and a majoritarily Hindu population. We still see the results of this ghastly error of judgment in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, where each of India and Pakistan claims the whole and militarily occupies about one half. If Britain had been honourable, it would have kept the whole Raj together to make one multi-faith country, according to Mohandas Gandhi's dream, which could have thereby saved itself the human and economic cost of constant hostility, and avoided the coming into existence of the extremist supposedly Muslim terrorist groups which were spawned by the enmity fostered on partition.

Actively participating in the wars against Iraq - 1990-2003

The former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein Takriti, was given vast supplies of arms to enable him to wage war against the régime installed in Iran by the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, who had removed the puppet Shah, much appreciated for his willingness to obey orders from the "West". However, in 1990 the then United States Ambassador gave the Iraqi leader what he considered a green light to invade and "recover" the emirate of Kuwait, referred to throughout by Iraqis as their lost province. The invasion thereupon took place, and the U.S.A., under the presidency of Mr George H.W. Bush (former head of the CIA, the world's leading terrorist organisation), led a "coalition" of states to drive Iraqi forces out of the Kuwait. Despite having made it militarily impossible for Iraqi forces to repeat their invasion of their southern neighbour, the U.S.A. and Britain decided to maintain an embargo on food and medicines on Iraq, thereby causing thousands of deaths and great suffering, particularly among children. The only reason for this embargo seems to have been to punish the Iraqi régime for its steadfast and constant support for the Palestinian people, and its opposition to Zionist ambitions in the whole of the Near and Middle East. After the strictest United Nations controls of Iraq's possible development of weapons of mass destruction, it became obvious that Iraq had no such weapons, but the U.S.A., under Mr George W. Bush (son of the former president), and Britain, under Mr Anthony C.L. Blair, by the use of obvious untruths, persuaded their respective peoples that Iraq poqed a threat to them. This was such a blatant lie that it is amazing that anyone believed it, and the criminality of these two men, and their minions, is clear under the Nuremberg Principles, agreed by the United Nations after the Second World War.

No-one can doubt the bravery of the armed forces of the U.S.A. and Britain who have carried out the orders of these two criminals, but that does not in any way justify the destruction of the physical and political infrastructure of what was until then, a modern secular state. These armed forces were among the first victims of the criminality of their leaders, to whom honesty and decency meant, and still mean, nothing. Britain has a lot to atone for as a result of its involvement in Iraq, and should be ashamed for its honour.

All these crimes are a horrible legacy for Britain to leave to its people's future generations, and the rpesent government should show the way by apologising for its crimes and trying to do something to make up for them.