Hi Michelle. My pleasure love.

I think this article pretty much says it all.


"Last Thursday's London massacre of almost three score innocent people who
were simply smashed to bleeding fragments on their way to work, has thrown
a harsh light on the British Left. Normal people learned something from
the horror – the shocking inhumanity of the attackers, perhaps.

Not so the Left.

Within twenty-four hours, the Guardian of London was pumping out its daily propaganda line: Don't blame the killers. Blame Bush and Blair for knocking over Saddam Hussein. Which makes me wonder whether the editors' own parents blamed Winston Churchill for the Nazi bombings of London."
for the rest of the article go to:
http://www.americanthinke[...]id=4641

BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting problems, quotation marks will appear as stars * All quotes in the excerpt are properly footnoted in the original book, with full references to British archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:

Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.

London: St. Martins Press, 1994.

---

And as for making possible the nazi bombing of London - and the killing of six million jews and 20 million russian "commies":

http://www.karenlyster.co[...]r.html/

Hi Ziggy,

I respect you opinion, but respectfully disagree....

GWB is just not that calculating or smart enough to do this. The conspiracy theorists point to fragments of facts out of context when claiming this. When you check into details the facts somehow seem to evaporate.

I believe that your London attacks and our 9/11 attacks were from groups of misguided extreme radical THUGS (I wont call them ISLAMIC RADICALS). The labels we are placing on the thugs are doing a disservice to a whole ISLAMIC population.

In fact extreme radicals on the left or right are fully capable of justifying ANY action they may contemplate. Wether it is OKLAHOMA CITY, NY, LONDON, WEST BANK, ANTHRAX Scare, etc, the reasons the extreme radical thugs use to justify their actions are varied. If civilization had stuck with the EYE-FOR-AN-EYE reasoning we would still be back in medieval times. As much as I would like to believe that civilization has grown past that stage, the truth, in the form of terrorist acts points out that pockets of INHUMANITY are still alive and well in the world.

In closing-

1. It is truly sad that a group of extremists, in justifying their actions, have
co-opted and given a fine religion a big black eye.

2. Making accusations on rumors and innuendo just contributes to the problem.

respectfully,
Michelle Lynn

PS It's ok to hate Bush, just be honest about the reasons based on facts.

Oh dear, oh dear,Sandi. As a Gruniad reader, I don't have any recollection of that which you speak of...then again I only get the paper for the Steve Bell Cartoons! One other thing. Had you spent some time in an air-raid shelter, listening intially for the sound of the German bombers, then have your Mum holding you and screaming "It's going to hit us!", (it didn't but the the nearby public convenience was never re-built), then who knows...?

Hi Michelle, ever heared of the "Reichstag Fire"?

And this as well, Michelle. "Dubya" may not be smart enough to tie his own shoelaces, but the man with his hand up the prezzas back, the Veep, sure as hell is, a real piece of work hey? And perhaps you might mention the "pocket of inhumanity" over there who are trying to deprive those in need of their health-care.

Hi Elly,
Just read up on Reichstag Fire and learned something new.

Thanks,
Michelle Lynn

Welllllllllll, er, actually, Sandi....

There is some evidence that provoking Hitler into ordering his bombers to strike London was exactly what Churchill had in mind when he ordered the "retaliatory" raid on Berlin after a minor, accidental release of bombs over the London area by a lost Luftwaffe bomber crew. The RAF airfields were being hit by the Luftwaffe and England faced irreplacable losses of aircraft/airfields that were necessary to defend England against a possible invasion and against the intensive bomber raids that the Germans had been launching since Adler Tag (Eagle Day). By manipulating Hitler into bombing London, Churchill was probably trading Londoners for Spitfires to save England.

This is probably not the only time Churchill took draconian measures to save the country by sacrificing lives. There is other circumstantial evidence regarding other incidents. Hard decisions by a hard man in hard times.

I am not suggesting that Tony B. Liar is doing the same, incidentally. He is no Churchill.

Sandi, I have to agree with Wendy. And there's more.

Let us not forget that Hitler did not want the U.S. to enter the conflict. He was ticked off by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor because it would draw the U.S into the war. He thought that if the U.S. stayed out he could have defeated England. Regardless of Churchill, or anyone else in charge, Hitler was going to bomb London.

I personally believe George W. Liar knew about 9/11, much like others believe FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. Georgie's daddy screwed up the first gulf war (which was also unnecessary), and they needed to show they might have a pair. Also, since Georgie Jerk can't get the people responsible for 9/11, he's going after a weaker nation in order to show his "strength." Classic bully attitude. Iraq was of no threat to the U.S. Don't you find it interesting that the U.S. and the U.K. sold weapons to Iraq, then got "mad" because they had these weapons?

I hate all of this. Thousands of people are dead right now because of a couple of assholes. On both sides.

By the way, it's possible to both hate Saddam and deplore the war.

I'm out of this argument. I'm sick of it all.

Michelle, you just reminded me of something that needs to be added to this. The Oklahoma City bombing was inspired - to use that word - by a book called "The Turner Diaries," which is generally known as the "Bible of the Racist Right." I have a xeroxed copy of it, and let me tell you, it's scary to think that some people actually think this way. It's a book you'll never forget. In that book a similar violent act is committed, among others.

While I don't promote the racist right, it is an important book to read. Know your enemy. If those bastards ever did get in charge, they'd come after me and my family first since I had the audacity to marry a black woman, and have a child with her. My kid would be called a mongrel brat, and they'd either shoot us or hang us.

If you want to be truly terrified, read THE IRON DREAM. It's a Science Fiction novel. The premise is that Adolf Hitler fled Germany in the 30's and became a SF writer and wrote this book. What is scary is how seductive the ideas in the book become and what you realize about yourself as you approach the end. It's a bit like reading the TURNER DIARIES and finding you agree with it. It is on my list of 100 books every child should read before graduating college.