A view from Britain
There seems little doubt, that the Greek rebellion contributed to a re-alignment of the big European powers, which gave rise to the Crimean war. The uprising of Greek Christians against the Turkish, in the early 1800s, impacted on the unrest and subsequent massacre of Christians in Syria. Sir Reader Bullard describes how Britain sought to maintain diplomatic relations with both sides, as public opinion internally, was with the plight of the Greeks; including, that of the poet, Lord Byron, who died for the cause.
Karl Marx (last entry) attributes the massacre of Syrian Christians to the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the region but Sir Reader Bullard claims it was because of Egyptian misrule in Syria. The fact, that Ottoman commander Mohammed Ali Pasha (see previous publications), was colonising Both Egypt and Syria, these two assertions, may well not be mutually exclusive. In fact there, probably is an array of reasons; it is convoluted folks.
Britain was concerned, that Russia might ”adopt a separate policy in regards to Turkey”; which they did, when they became the self-appointed defender of Christians in Turkey and more importantly, when they exerted influence over the Dardanelles, which connects the Aegean sea to the sea of Marmara, or Greece to Turkey.
In 1827, Britain joined, the French and Russian naval fleets, which defeated the Egyptian and Turkish fleets at Navarino Bay in the Peloponnes. The Peloponnes are a group of islands, joined to the Greek mainland, in the south and is home to the Corinth canal, finally built between 1881 and 1893. I say finally, as it was first thought of in the 3rd century BC.
A paper entitled ‘The field – Its Conditions and Problems’, mentions the massacre of 20,000 Greeks on the island of Scio in 1822 and the disorder it caused, among Syrian Christians. The paper was written by missionaries, from Europe and America, who had settled in Syria. It gives an account of life in Syria at the time and can be found on; firstname.lastname@example.org
Because of the complexities of the subject and because I want to make a political point I’ll stop there for now.
Mr. Blair: Amnesia or simple hypocrisy?
I am concerned about young British Muslims going to Syria, with a view to imposing Islamist radicalism or Wahabiizm on its inhabitants. I will, though, take this opportunity to distance myself from the opinions of Mr Tony Blair, the former New Labour prime minister.
It is unthinkable, that this is the same Tony Blair, who unleashed a radical Shia regime on Iraq, after ousting an Arab nationalist administration. The Ba’ath regime, at least attempted to take the country out of poverty and, what ever the motive, used oil revenue to finance capital projects in some poorer Arab states; which shared similar ideology.
Fuck!! I just read, that Mr. Blair proposes backing revolution, if it occurs in countries like Iran, which is run by, yeah you guessed it, a radical Shia regime. Mr Orwell would be so pleased with such a perfect example of double think.
The greatest anomaly, though, is that, Blair’s agenda is an appeal to Britain and its cohorts to join forces with Russia, to beat fundamentalism. I seem to remember, that when he was prime minister, Blair had nothing but sympathy for the Chechen uprising against Russia; instigated by Islamic radicalism.
Blair, failed also to speak out about the west and its role in supporting the Mujahidin (a radical Islamic group) against Russia, in 1970s and 1980s Afghanistan. Neither did he criticise Britain for using the Taliban (another radical Islamic group), to overthrow the Mujahidin. You will remember too, that he sent forces into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban along with, President Karzai’s radical Islamic supporters. Wow! has he got amnesia?
You might say that Afghanistan has never posed a threat to the west, let alone attempted to invade its neighbours and you would be correct. You might say also, that the Taliban, oppress women and forbid girls an education, probably true but in fact all three of the above factions originate from the same cultural group, the Pashto speaking Ghilzais. It appears to me, that all the west has done is to stir up the differences between these groups, in order to maintain a civil war, which gives them control in the region.
Giving the former USSR the benefit of the doubt, they attempted to promote secular or socialist ideals, in Afghanistan. Before and since the break up of the USSR, though, their agenda is to expand and protect their perceived territory and resources in that region. Better than Britain and its cohorts taking the whole world? I believe it was to stop Russia interfering with their trade routes in India, that gave Britain the reason for their second invasion of Afghanistan, in the 1870s; a subject touched on in a previous posting.
No to NATO!!
There will be a NATO summit held in Newport and Wales is none to pleased. We plan to oppose this debacle. If you are interested see www.nonatonewport.org for further info.