Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 365
Reply with quote  #16 
The problem is, Azadi, most of the things that you keep bringing up as crimes committed by the British Empire simply aren't. The supposed expulsion of Spaniards from Gibraltar never happened the way you claim it did, and whilst it may have been a mistake to give the Hashemite kingdom of Iraq control over southern Kurdistan and to restrict Jewish migration to Israel during the British Mandate (though I would disagree especially with the latter assessment), neither can really be considered "crimes" unambiguously.

If you brought up actual, indisputable crimes committed by the British, such as the Opium Wars, British involvement in the slave trade, the response to famines in India and Ireland in the 19th century, the Amritsar Massacre or the tactics used against the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, you might well get a different response- at least from me. But you are not actually interested in holding Britain to account for its past crimes. You only bring up the crimes of the British Empire as a bludgeoning tool in debates to try to strong-arm us into accepting your views on Gibraltar, Kurdistan and Israel. And although you have occasionally stated that you dislike Spanish imperialism as well, it's Britain and Gibraltar that you go on and on about; you've never advocated the return of Spain's enclaves in North Africa to Morocco. You actually have expressed your fondness for imperialistic regimes such as the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Japan, both of which committed atrocities at least as bad as the worst of what Britain ever did. The only people who you complain about nearly as much as the British are the Hashemites, because of their alleged historical oppression of the Kurds; which just confirms what we all know to be true- you don't really care about moral principles, you just pick your sides in any contentious issue based on your personal prejudices for or against the parties involved.

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #17 
Azadi has never actually expressed a single word about the various Spanish exclaves. He has simply ignored the question every time it was brought up, which was often. I would agree with you on everything in your list of shameful and in fact terrible actions committed by Britain, though I would add that the Mau Mau were themselves the worst of the worst, even if that doesn't excuse our having acted on occasion all too like them. I still don't think that anything in British history matches up to the Armenian genocides (there was more than one) or the unspeakable barbarity of the Japanese actions in WWII. Your overall point however seems valid to me.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
The problem is, Azadi, most of the things that you keep bringing up as crimes committed by the British Empire simply aren't. The supposed expulsion of Spaniards from Gibraltar never happened the way you claim it did, and whilst it may have been a mistake to give the Hashemite kingdom of Iraq control over southern Kurdistan and to restrict Jewish migration to Israel during the British Mandate (though I would disagree especially with the latter assessment), neither can really be considered "crimes" unambiguously.

If you brought up actual, indisputable crimes committed by the British, such as the Opium Wars, British involvement in the slave trade, the response to famines in India and Ireland in the 19th century, the Amritsar Massacre or the tactics used against the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, you might well get a different response- at least from me. But you are not actually interested in holding Britain to account for its past crimes. You only bring up the crimes of the British Empire as a bludgeoning tool in debates to try to strong-arm us into accepting your views on Gibraltar, Kurdistan and Israel. And although you have occasionally stated that you dislike Spanish imperialism as well, it's Britain and Gibraltar that you go on and on about; you've never advocated the return of Spain's enclaves in North Africa to Morocco. You actually have expressed your fondness for imperialistic regimes such as the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Japan, both of which committed atrocities at least as bad as the worst of what Britain ever did. The only people who you complain about nearly as much as the British are the Hashemites, because of their alleged historical oppression of the Kurds; which just confirms what we all know to be true- you don't really care about moral principles, you just pick your sides in any contentious issue based on your personal prejudices for or against the parties involved.

I'm trying to correct the biases of this forum. This forum is biased in favour of the British Empire and the Hashemites and against the Ottoman Empire. I have also condemned Soviet Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran a lot on this forum. I have rarely mentioned Imperial Japan on this forum. I have indeed defended the Ottoman Empire on this forum, because the Ottoman Empire treated the Kurds far better than the Iraqi Hashemites and Saddam did and because it treated the Jews well, but I have often condemned the Armenian Genocide on this forum.
I haven't condemned the crimes of the British Empire, which you mentioned, because they don't matter today. Britain has granted Ireland, India and Kenya independence, and the slave trade was a pan-European crime. The Kurdish conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gibraltar dispute remain unresolved today. I admit that calling Britain making Kurdistan part of Iraq a crime is an exaggeration, because Britain didn't oppress the Kurds. But Britain made a disastrous mistake by enabling Iraq to oppress the Kurds. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #19 
You certainly aren't going to succeed in your self-imposed mission going about it the way you are. What you have succeeded in so far is being a detestable pest. Also in making yourself look like a complete ignoramus, with no idea of how to construct a rational argument and driven purely by private prejudices. Kindly don't present us as being a mirror of yourself. We like to have reasons for what we think, and while we may be amenable to argument over our positions we are not to hectoring and bullying. I am no uncritical lover of the British Empire, but I do believe it had virtues as well as faults. I don't in any case want it back, it belongs to another era. As it happens I've never found a great deal to like about the Iraqi Hashemites, rather the reverse, though I am somewhat warmer about the Jordanian branch. I am no fan at all of the Ottoman Empire, in fact in many ways it appalls and repels me. This is based on what I know about it, and you are not going to change my views except with fact and reasoning.

It is true that you have rarely mentioned Imperial Japan, but as I recall you have done so and in favourable terms. It has not, however, been one of your mantras of which we are all heartily sick. The complex situation and numerous conflicting interests created by the break-up of the Ottoman state could no doubt have been resolved better, but never in a way satisfactory to all parties. And there were more parties than Britain involved, the Treaty of Lausanne had quite a number of signatories, it was not and never could have been Britain's unilateral declaration. So please stop pretending that it was all Britain's fault, or that it would have been in the slightest bit easy to arrange things otherwise. In this connection, your entire lack of concern for Syrian Kurds, Turkish Kurds (very severely oppressed for decades on end) and Iranian Kurds is notable. Is this perhaps because you would then be required to attack someone other than Britain? Which was actually the point of the exercise, not protesting historical injustices but rather finding a stick to beat Britain with.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You certainly aren't going to succeed in your self-imposed mission going about it the way you are. What you have succeeded in so far is being a detestable pest. Also in making yourself look like a complete ignoramus, with no idea of how to construct a rational argument and driven purely by private prejudices. Kindly don't present us as being a mirror of yourself. We like to have reasons for what we think, and while we may be amenable to argument over our positions we are not to hectoring and bullying. I am no uncritical lover of the British Empire, but I do believe it had virtues as well as faults. I don't in any case want it back, it belongs to another era. As it happens I've never found a great deal to like about the Iraqi Hashemites, rather the reverse, though I am somewhat warmer about the Jordanian branch. I am no fan at all of the Ottoman Empire, in fact in many ways it appalls and repels me. This is based on what I know about it, and you are not going to change my views except with fact and reasoning.

It is true that you have rarely mentioned Imperial Japan, but as I recall you have done so and in favourable terms. It has not, however, been one of your mantras of which we are all heartily sick. The complex situation and numerous conflicting interests created by the break-up of the Ottoman state could no doubt have been resolved better, but never in a way satisfactory to all parties. And there were more parties than Britain involved, the Treaty of Lausanne had quite a number of signatories, it was not and never could have been Britain's unilateral declaration. So please stop pretending that it was all Britain's fault, or that it would have been in the slightest bit easy to arrange things otherwise. In this connection, your entire lack of concern for Syrian Kurds, Turkish Kurds (very severely oppressed for decades on end) and Iranian Kurds is notable. Is this perhaps because you would then be required to attack someone other than Britain? Which was actually the point of the exercise, not protesting historical injustices but rather finding a stick to beat Britain with.

I haven't defended or denied the war crimes of Imperial Japan on this forum. I have merely claimed that Emperor Hirohito wasn't responsible for the war crimes of Imperial Japan, because he was a figurehead during World War II.
The Ottoman Empire had both virtues and faults. The Ottoman Empire treated the Kurds better than the Iraqi Hashemites and Saddam did and the Ottoman Empire treated the Jews well, but the Armenian Genocide was a heinous crime.
Atatürk wanted to keep South (Iraqi) Kurdistan after World War I, and Turkey actually didn't cede South Kurdistan to Iraq in the Treaty of Lausanne. The League of Nations decided that South Kurdistan should be part of Iraq in 1925, because the League of Nations didn't dare to defy the mighty British Empire. I would have preferred South Kurdistan being part of the Republic of Turkey to South Kurdistan being part of Iraq, because Turkey never has committed genocide against the Kurds, unlike Iraq. 
Claiming that I don't care about Syrian, Turkish and Iranian Kurds, because I can't attack Britain by being concerned for them, is slander. I'm more concerned for the Iraqi Kurds than for the Syrian Kurds, the Turkish Kurds and the Iranian Kurds, because I'm actually an Iraqi Kurd. But I'm concerned for the Syrian, Turkish and Iranian Kurds too. I want Kurdish to become an official language of Syria.
I don't support Kurdish secession from Iran, because I'm a Pan-Iranist. The Persians are our kin, unlike the Arabs and the Turks. The Kurds have never been oppressed by Iran according to Jalal Talabani. The Islamic Republic of Iran oppresses Sunni Muslim Kurds and non-Muslim Kurds, but it doesn't oppress Shia Muslim Kurds. A secular democratic Iran will likely treat all Iranian Kurds well, regardless of religious affiliation.
I don't support Kurdish secession from Turkey and Syria, because I'm an anti-Communist. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #21 
You never seem to care about slandering anyone else, so why should I worry about slandering you? Not that I think I have. The question of the Mosul vilayet, which as I understand things more or less equates to South (Iraqi) Kurdistan, is something of a grey area it is true. What is not in doubt is that if Mosul had remained in Turkey its Kurds would have been systematically oppressed and persecuted over decades, exactly as all other Turkish Kurds were.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Individual Britons aren't responsible for the crimes of the British Empire, despite the British state is responsible for the crimes of the British Empire.
I don't claim that the British state is responsible for the crimes of the British Empire, because I'm biased against Britain.


But what does it mean to say a state can have moral obligations separate from its members? If individual Britons aren't responsible for the ancient crimes of other its state, does that mean contemporary representatives of the British state also aren't responsible for these crimes?


Look, there is a sense in which we do hold the state corporately responsible for wrong doings. It may be possible to salvage your point. If the British state does something wrong, sometimes the victims can sue. But usually that is for relatively recent wrongs, not for centuries old ones. As successor to the Kingdom of England, we don't expect that we may be sued by Frenchmen for the Hundred Years War.

One irony is that, on Kurdistan, you have the agreement of many or even most members without having to appeal to the conscience of Britons. I also am not sure there is an Anglophile bias here in terms of historical rights and wrongs, not as a general matter. Certainly, some of us may be more interested in issues like Gibraltar because of our backgrounds or interests, but I see little evidence that we are biased because of it. I am fully able to admit the wrongs of the British empire, whether or not I think they are particularly relevant today. On Gibraltar and the Falklands, I'm genuinely convinced that the Spanish and Argentinians have very poor arguments. Being British perhaps interests me in the outcome of the discussion, but I don't think it unduly influences my assessment of the positions. I don't see evidence that anyone else he is displaying pro-British bias on these issues either. I don't think you need to balance pro-British bias in this sense. There's no one here just appealing to British jingoism or anti-Spanish prejudice.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


But what does it mean to say a state can have moral obligations separate from its members? If individual Britons aren't responsible for the ancient crimes of other its state, does that mean contemporary representatives of the British state also aren't responsible for these crimes?


Look, there is a sense in which we do hold the state corporately responsible for wrong doings. It may be possible to salvage your point. If the British state does something wrong, sometimes the victims can sue. But usually that is for relatively recent wrongs, not for centuries old ones. As successor to the Kingdom of England, we don't expect that we may be sued by Frenchmen for the Hundred Years War.

One irony is that, on Kurdistan, you have the agreement of many or even most members without having to appeal to the conscience of Britons. I also am not sure there is an Anglophile bias here in terms of historical rights and wrongs, not as a general matter. Certainly, some of us may be more interested in issues like Gibraltar because of our backgrounds or interests, but I see little evidence that we are biased because of it. I am fully able to admit the wrongs of the British empire, whether or not I think they are particularly relevant today. On Gibraltar and the Falklands, I'm genuinely convinced that the Spanish and Argentinians have very poor arguments. Being British perhaps interests me in the outcome of the discussion, but I don't think it unduly influences my assessment of the positions. I don't see evidence that anyone else he is displaying pro-British bias on these issues either. I don't think you need to balance pro-British bias in this sense. There's no one here just appealing to British jingoism or anti-Spanish prejudice.

Bearing a grudge against Britain, because it made Kurdistan part of Iraq, isn't merely my personal obsession. Many Kurds still bear a grudge against Britain, because Britain didn't establish an independent Kurdish state after World War I.
Spain granted the descendants of the Spanish Jews, who were expelled from Spain in 1492, the right to become Spanish citizens in 2015.
https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/02/inenglish/1570003149_039827.html

AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 528
Reply with quote  #24 
Wessexman, I suggest you disengage. He continues to quote your entire post, and then not engage with any of your actual points or questions. Azadi does not argue in good faith. There is no reason to continue.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas
Wessexman, I suggest you disengage. He continues to quote your entire post, and then not engage with any of your actual points or questions. Azadi does not argue in good faith. There is no reason to continue.

I'm used to quote the entire post, because I once was a member of Sufficient Velocity (a leftist internet forum). Spaghetti posting was banned on Sufficient Velocity. I will cease to do it, if it annoys you. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #26 
Time to up the campaign for reparations to the descendants of the Danes killed in the infamous massacre under King Æthelred II?

You didn't engage my points, that's the main point Aaron was making, and it is true. You can hardly say in fairness that I wasn't sincerely trying to engage with you. The only substance in your response was the link about the Spaniards, but that in itself hardly proves your point: just because a government somewhere does something doesn't mean that it is right, necessary, or even makes much sense to do it. We do live in the age of the black arm band, social justice warriors, and virtue signalling, so it's hardly surprising you can find examples like this, but they don't actually substitute for a proper argument.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You never seem to care about slandering anyone else, so why should I worry about slandering you? Not that I think I have. The question of the Mosul vilayet, which as I understand things more or less equates to South (Iraqi) Kurdistan, is something of a grey area it is true. What is not in doubt is that if Mosul had remained in Turkey its Kurds would have been systematically oppressed and persecuted over decades, exactly as all other Turkish Kurds were.

Claiming that I support Kurdish nationalism, because I'm an Anglophobe, is slander. I'm a Kurdish nationalist, because I sincerely want my country to obtain independence from Iraq, not because I hate Britain. I don't care about Greater Kurdistan, because establishing an independent Kurdish state somewhere is far more important than trying to unify the cultural region of Kurdistan. Kurdistan obtaining independence from Iraq will benefit Syrian and Turkish Kurds too, because they can move to an independent South Kurdistan. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #28 
The only Sufficient Velocity I could find was an evidently busy and thriving site devoted to SF fanfiction and gaming. It has no such rule, as I easily discovered by looking at a thread or two. Anyway, while this is only one of many things about you that annoy me one less would be worthwhile, so yes please do stop it. You could also stop deleting posts that have been replied to, making unadvertised significant alterations to posts that have been replied to, and continually deleting and reposting the last post in a thread (or first post in a new thread), giving the impression of a flashing neon sign. After that you could begin the difficult stuff, such as learning to argue in an intellectually honest way, Aaron is entirely right about that.

As for your last post, my point was not that you support Kurdish nationalism due to Anglophobia. My point was that you bang on endlessly about Britain being responsible for all the ills that subsequently befell Iraqi Kurdistan due to Anglophobia. I still don't think I slandered you, and if I did frankly I don't care. Sue me.

PS An apology, of sorts. Sufficient Velocity, which is still as I described it and not a 'leftist Internet forum', does have such a rule. However, it in no way explains your habit of always posting the complete post you are replying to, even if it is immediately above your own, and then often not replying to it at all but going off on some new tangent. Which sometimes appears to be completely random but usually is a transparent attempt to evade a particular question while purporting to respond to it.

The ban on spaghetti posting by no means enjoins you to always quote the post you are replying to in full. There is absolutely no requirement to quote the replied-to post at all. What you are not allowed to do is cut the post up into little bite-sized chunks and reply to each point in turn, which I have always felt was a bad habit, excessively indulged in here by the Baron among others. So your explanation was as usual disingenuous.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
As for your last post, my point was not that you support Kurdish nationalism due to Anglophobia. My point was that you bang on endlessly about Britain being responsible for all the ills that subsequently befell Iraqi Kurdistan due to Anglophobia. I still don't think I slandered you, and if I did frankly I don't care. Sue me.

You put the cart before the horse by claiming that I blame Britain for the Iraqi crimes against Kurdistan, because I'm an Anglophobe. I'm actually bearing a grudge against Britain, BECAUSE Britain made Kurdistan part of Iraq. Britain is responsible for the ills that subsequently befell Kurdistan, because the Iraqi Hashemites and Saddam wouldn't have been able to commit crimes against the Kurds, if Britain hadn't made Kurdistan part of Iraq.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,442
Reply with quote  #30 
No I don't. You yet again reply deliberately misleadingly. It may well have been Britain making Kurdistan part of Iraq that made you an Anglophobe. My point was not on why you are an Anglophobe, it was that you are an Anglophobe. As you have at last admitted. With perhaps some justification, it certainly was a mistake for people in the 1920s not to recognise and allow for the crimes of Saddam in the 1990s. I mean, where was their crystal ball? The very first thing you place on any conference table, surely.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.