Daphne Du Maurier on the Palestinians and Israel

In her short story, The Way of the Cross, Daphne Du Maurier reveals quite a bit about the plight of the Palestinians and the sheer wickedness which had brought forth Israel.

"His wife had countered the business chat by holding forth about the distress and starvation amongst Arab refugees, which, she insisted, was the responsibility of the whole world. She might have contributed towards this, thought Babcock, by wearing a less expensive fur coat, and giving the money saved to the refugees."

"No one will ever settle down in this part of the world, and they'll still be fighting over Jerusalem when you and I have been in our graves for years."

The Colonel vividly recalls Jewish terrorism:

"We only acted under instructions, the Colonel told himself. They came direct from High Command. Terrorism was rife at the time, the Palestine Police Force couldn't deal with it, we had to take control. The Jews were laying mines at street corners, the situation was deteriorating daily. They had blown up the King David Hotel in July. We had to arm the troops, and protect them and the civilian population against terrorist attack. The trouble was, there was no political policy back at home, with a Labour government in power. They told us to go soft, but how can you go soft when people on the spot are being killed? The Jewish Agency insisted that they were against terrorism, but it was all talk and no action. Well, then we picked up this Jewish boy and flogged him. He was a terrorist, right enough. Caught him in the act. Nobody likes inflicting pain ... There were reprisals afterwards, of course. One of our officers and three N.C.O.'s kidnapped and flogged. Hell of a row about it at home."

Then there's the observation on illegal settlements:

"Kate Foster, having inspected the Al Aqsa Mosque, had resolutely turned her back on the entrance to the Wailing Wall--too many Orthodox Jews pressing forward over the enormous space where their government had had the ruthless audacity to bulldoze Jordanian dwellings and condemn more Jordanians to desert tents--and returned towards the Dome of the Rock."

Reading the story, you are convinced that terrorism pays - it has created the 'modern' state of Israel. Al-Qaeda's strategy, then, is a very sound one.

It'll probably work.

Mutiny in Bangladesh: unsolved mystery threatens regional stability - CSMonitor.com

Mutiny in Bangladesh: unsolved mystery threatens regional stability - CSMonitor.com: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"



The Christian Science Monitor has come up with a ridiculous theory that the mujahideen were involved in the BDR mutiny. The article doesn't mention the facts of the case.

It took 32 hours for tanks to reach Dhaka from Savar: why? Why did the government postpone sending in the tanks?

On the internet, the dressing-down given to Shaikh Hasina by the army was broadcast: the CSM says nothing about it. We have wives' testimony that their husbands inside the BDR compound were reassured that help was soon on its way: no help came. Why?


"If the army chief had sent just one tank, or one platoon of commandos, they would have run like ants!" spoke Colonel Zaman in a voice choking with repressed tears. In fact, this was precisely what they did when the tanks turned up on Satmasjid Road, a couple of hundred yards from the scene – but the tanks arrived after 32 hours. My wife and I were living there then, and went out to see the tanks.


Why did the government of Sheikh Hasina allow the BDR mutineers to do what they did?

A plausible explanation is that the army had kept Sheikh Hasina in jail for a year, a humiliation that her party and she would not tolerate. They took revenge on the military. There was no Islamic terrorism behind it - unless Sheikh Hasina is one.

Shame on you, CSM - facts, facts, facts: stick to the facts, please (who, what, where, when, why, how - remember these?).

Terrorism in Canada

If others, whom you had trusted, enslave your people and ship them overseas, then would you retaliate? It would be abnormal human nature not to.

Louis XIV had a colony in Canada (that is, what was to become Canada). He liked slaves (they all did) and he felt that the Iroquois would be good slaves – galley slaves. The governor of Canada then abducted even friendly Iroquois and carted them off to the Sun King (or was it Sun God? Never mind.)

In what is supposed to be the bloodiest episode in the history of Canada, the Iroquois came down on a village called Lachine, a few miles above Montreal. On the night of August 4 1689, one thousand four hundred Iroquois descended on the village and engaged in an orgy of massacre.

A few weeks later, Louis de Buade, Comte de Frontenac, arrived to take charge. According to an historian, " He belonged to that school of military action which knows no scruple in its methods...."

Now, that's terrorism for you. You enslave a people, then expect them to continue to be friends, and when they retaliate, you use the vilest methods possible. The Canadians had it coming, as any disinterested reader must acknowledge. The villagers of Lachine paid for the foreign policy of their kings. All so familiar.