Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 





Obama: British Empire worse than al-Qaeda!
Sunday, 22 February 2009 19:29
by Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

Well, he didn’t exactly put it that way but a closer reading and a more honestly keen interpretation inevitably leads those of us sympathetic towards a sincere anti-imperialist tradition to logically infer and quite inevitably draw that conclusion. The comparison and then verdict is clearly implicit and what more noble platform to affirm this absolute truth, than at his own inauguration, as President of the United States of America: one of the first nations, if not the first nation to free itself from the British parasitic and imperialist yoke.

History testifies that if the American revolutionaries had not liberated themselves from the British they simply would not have become the technologically pioneering and culturally dominant nation of the last 100 years. China, India and Iran are now showing similar patterns of progress. The fascinating progress of all the three nations is predicated on the uncompromising fact that they freed themselves from imperialist and neo-imperialist bondage. It is very unlikely that China will ever suffer from British imperialist opium dealers backed by the British Navy again.i Since Indian independence, the Indians have not been inflicted by any famine caused by British imperialist looting and pillaging of their staple resources.ii

But what did President Barack Hussain Obama really say at his magnificent inauguration. One of the most important themes the new President addressed was to refute, indeed declare “false” one of the Bush administrations defining policies. That is, there is clash between, “safety” and “ideals”. President Obama indirectly asks why the safety/ideals dichotomy was not expediently utilised during the founding moments and battles of the new republic. Furthermore, not only was this dichotomy not utilised for political expediency’s sake but a charter was drafted “to assure the rule of law and rights of man.” President Obama categorically states, that the “enemy”, i.e. the British Empire, during the war of independence was more perilous – actually, “perils we can scarcely imagine” – than a “network of violence and hatred” i.e. al-Qaeda.iii

The British Empire was more perilous than al-Qaeda. Or in other words, if the United States did not compromise its ideals when they were facing the British enemy which wanted to destroy their revolution, their ideals and bring to an end the fledgling republic, then why should they compromise their values when faced with al-Qaeda?

Whereas, British imperialism initially waged war on the United States, on American soil so as to prevent the development of the new republic and also eventually invaded and burned down the capital as it was retreating, al-Qaeda’s attacks on the United States and American interests are very much largely a response to American foreign policy. As the main leader of al-Qaeeda, Osama bin Laden, has said, why hasn’t he attacked Sweden? If American values, such as freedom, are what antagonise al-Qaeeda, why isn’t al-Qaeeda attacking other nations, such as Sweden, which share those values?

Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.

American foreign policy has not always been as contemptible towards the indigenous Arab population of the Middle East as British imperialism’s foreign policy. Before the Eisenhower doctrine of 1957, America didn’t always see the Middle East through British foreign policy eyes.

British officials during and immediately after the Second World War worked very hard and launched an academic propaganda campaign in order to convince the United States to acknowledge Soviet Russia as the new enemy. Once this acknowledgement was established, the United Kingdom easily sold its design of and for the Middle East as a bulwark against Soviet Russia and communism.v

However, before this was fully established there were two episodes wherein the United States seemed to be in political sync with the now indigenous Arab population of the Middle East.

The first episode was the King-Crane commission in 1919. The commission was devised by President Wilson after the Great War to find and report on what the local populations of the Middle East wanted in its aftermath. They visited at least 1500 locations in what was then known as the ‘Shaam’ region amongst the indigenous population.vi This region now covers Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. It was found that, after the commission’s remit had been reduced so as not to partly offend the British, the indigenous population wanted nothing to do with British mandates, the Balfour Declaration and Britain’s project of facilitating a European Jewish majority in Palestine.vii

The second episode was when America compelled the British led tripartite invasion of Egypt in 1956 to stop. This British led imperialist adventure is now commonly referred to as the “Suez Crises”. According to the historian Keith Kyle, there is evidence that America having won popularity and credibility amongst the vast majority of mankind by preventing British barbarism from going further could have chosen to side with Third World anti-imperialists. Instead it continued to perceive the world through British eyes and eventually reaped its wrath.viii

As an adjunct to his inauguration, in his first interview with a foreign television station, the new President reiterated America’s liberation from British imperialism. He correctly stated that, “America was not born a colonial power.”ix This may be seen as a much belated swipe at America’s former imperial master and the Middle East’s original architects of division, exploitation, terror and war - the British. Britain, to a very large extent, has always defined itself by colonialism and imperialism. To this day, a statue of one of its greatest imperial looters, Robert Clive stands outside the British foreign and commonwealth office in London, no doubt, signalling its intent towards mankind.

There are now roughly 250 million Arabs, a billion Muslims and the new President of the United States claims he wants a new relationship with these peoples, based on “mutual respect.” This “mutual respect” will never develop if President Obama, like his predecessors, continues to play the British concocted evil game in the Middle East. A barbaric game, which has reaped millions and billions in subsidiesx for the British state (under the fig leaf of “investments” and “trade” from the Gulf statelets it created), fanatical murderous wrath for the Americans and ethnic cleansing, division and war for the indigenous Arabs.
More from this author:
Thus Spoke George W. Bush (3247 Hits)
by Nu’man Abd al-Wahid “We insist on the right to bomb n*ggers.” - British Prime Minister David Lloyd George. With the George...
IslamoFascism or IslamoBritishism: The British Origins of Modern Islamism (2983 Hits)
by Nu’man Abd al-Wahid “…If you can look into the seeds of time And say which grain will grow and which will not…” The...
London Daily Telegraph to Obama: Britain is America’s No.1 European client and don’t you forget it or else...no joyous pomp! (4995 Hits)
by Nu'man Abd al-Wahid The London Daily Telegraph is the highest selling daily newspaper in the UK. It is read by the upper echelons of British...
The Perfidious Comparison: Why Barack Obama is not another Tony Blair (2997 Hits)
by Nu'man Abd al-Wahid Barack Obama’s election victory was greeted with a sigh of relief by most of the world, glad to see the back of ...
Related Articles:
When Failure is Better than Success: What Americans, and the World, Owe to the Disaster in Iraq (11811 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler There can be no doubt that the failed American invasion of Iraq has been a terrible thing. Because of...
A Packet of Fear for Christmas: Channel Tunnel Threat "Far Graver" Than WWII (6251 Hits)
Jason Burke, writing for The Observer, has all the scary details. The Channel tunnel has been targeted by a group of Islamic militant terrorists...
And the Empire Mourned… Dissecting the Big Lie (6596 Hits)
By Jason Miller “If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone 'America died from a delusion that she had moral ...
Jerusalem Post Stokes The War On Muslims Even "Better" Than FOX "News"! (5444 Hits)
by Winter Patriot Derrick Shareef, the so-called terrorist who allegedly plotted to blow up hand grenades in garbage cans in a...
Federalism: A Solution More for Israel than for Iraq (6050 Hits)
by Nicola Nasser Revealing both the double standards of U.S. policies and the propaganda-oriented Israeli advocacy of “minority rights”...

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments (1)add comment

E. Venter said:

British worse than Al-Qaeda
I agree. In the Anglo Boer War, 1899 - 1902, the British set the scene for concentration camps in South Africa when they wanted the gold and the diamonds of the two tiny boer republics. The Brits sent 450,000 troops against a total population of 88,000. Yet, the British soldiers could not win on the battle field - not even against farmers with rifles.
So they fought against unarmed women, childre, pregnant women, elderly, sick, disabled in the scorched earth policy (for which Kitchener was knighted). They stormed farm houses, burnt them, terrorised the children by threatening to throw them into the fire; burnt food; burnt animals (sometimes it took 8 days for them to die); looted churches and burnt them; recruited blacks to rape the girls.
Whipped these devastated families on to soiled animal trucks; transported for days not food / water / toilets to concentration camps. Starved up to 65% of the child population. Planted tiny hooks in bullybeef to rip intestines. Prevented mothers from feeding children or even giving them water. Transported corpses on the same wagon as food. my grandparents were there.
After war: incorporated the two republics into the bigger South Africa. Prohibited the use of the Afrikaans language in churches and schools. Set up homelands for the blacks, to keep them 'in their place' - they could only go to South Africa with the passbook.
Realised these pillars of Apartheid (although the term was not coined then) could not work, so the British withdrew in 1948 leaving the boers with a card house that would come tumbling down - especially since Britian sided with the communist party and ANC-COMMUNIST informed party.
Britain sowed more devastation than Al-Qaeda: if they left the two tiny boer republics to themselves, the blacks would have had the larger share of the land. And 22500 boer children would not have been starved to death.
April 17, 2010
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger



Top 123