Reddit reviews The Trial of Henry Kissinger

Read the book: The Trial of Henry Kissenger

The single saddest thing in the world for me is that Christopher Hitchens is dead while Henry Kissinger is still alive.

You need to buy this. Today. http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/145552297X

They didn't "come to America," but yes of course the conflict between the United States and the Islamic world started before the events you outlined. I'll outline the relevant points as summarily as I can. For brevity, I will include history only related to the United States and not broader Western civilization. The case of the United States is salient and representative.

History of Islam: Muhammad to 1776

Muhammad first began teaching among Pagan Arabs who were more or less friendly until he began to teach that there is only one God and all other religions' followers shall burn in hell. When they began to threaten him and his people, he fled to Mecca and Medina, subsequently taking over the western half of Saudi Arabia along with the eastern tip (Oman). Almost all secular scholars of the Qur'an agree that it is as much a political guidebook (how to run a society) as a religious text (how to be a good person). Upon his death in 632, his followers interpreted the book as they did, and a system of Caliphates began to rule the Islamic world. By 661, all of what we call the Middle East and northeastern Africa was under the Caliphate. By the 8th century, the Caliphate had extended to include land from Spain to Pakistan. This was unsustainable militarily (given few people liked being ruled under Islamic law), so it was pulled back. The Turkish peoples were to become the new military force of the Caliphate, and took Constantinople just before Columbus "found" the "New World." When the United States declared independence, Abdul Hamid I was sultan, with even Baghdad under his rule (that article makes him sound friendlier than he actually was -- he was compelled to sign treaties after military defeats).

Barbary Slaves and Pirating

Before the United States had first elected Washington as President, the Congress found itself at odds with the Caliphate controlled lands. At this time, the Muslim world was taking Europeans and Americans as slaves, estimates are that as many as 1.25 million slaves were taken from the Western world (source: Robert Davis). John Adams, America's London ambassador, was sent to the Tripoli ambassador to discuss the matter, and was met with a demand of money for various levels of peace. Terms were set for the release of slaves, short term peace, and even a price for long term peace. The United States argued that it was a new nation. If their military had previously quarreled with Europe, that was of no concern to the United States. Could not peace with a new nation be had?

When Jefferson took the Presidency in 1801, he was immediately met with a demand of $4,000,000 (adjusted for inflation but not %GDP or federal budget) to be paid to the Muslim lands. Jefferson demanded repeatedly to know by what right these demands were made. By what right did they capture Americans as slaves, seize her ships, take her property, and demand payment in exchange?

> The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners.

Thomas Jefferson to Congress and the State Department

Barbary Wars to Usama bin Laden

President Jefferson found himself in the fortunate position of having a capable Navy that he, ironically enough, had fought against funding before being elected. With it, he began the first conflict between the United States and the Caliphate. The second line of the Marine Anthem (To the shores of Tripoli) celebrates the result even today. Congress authorized Jefferson to use the full might of the United States Navy to suppress the military aggression, with permission to seize and destroy property as the Navy was able. The language was quite strong and general.

The modern Islamic revival that began in the 1970s has seen a large surge in the total Muslim population, which we must admit is in some sense responsible for the recent surge of the lower jihad as well (this being the military jihad as opposed to the higher jihad meaning an inner struggle). Al Qaeda's number one demand was restoration of the Caliphate. The crime for which America has been subject to the violence from the radical Islamists was committed after approval by the Saudi royal family to use American troops to free Kuwait from Iraq rather than using their own, limited resources and relying heavily on the local mujahidin. In other words, Usama bin Laden was angry with America because he thought that local insurgents could fight Saddam the same way they had in Afghanistan against the Soviets rather than relying on smart bombs to do the same. (He forgot, or perhaps never knew, that Afghanistan was liberated only through American assistance. People who assert the unsophisticated non-distinction between Al Qaeda and the Taliban forget this. America gave aid to the Taliban, not The Base.)

Also central to crimes committed by the United States in Bin Laden's mind was our admission that we had begun to support the right of East Timor to self determination of government. Here is one of his first speeches after the 2001 attacks.. Ctrl+f "east timor" to see that his complaint is that the Caliphate's maximum extent is no longer in effect, with the world recognizing that the military devastation committed by Indonesia was invalid.

Specific Points: Iran in WWII, The Taliban, Gulf War vs. bin Laden, and Diplomacy

So, yes, the Barbary wars happened before the Iranian coup. Keep in mind also that 1953 is also after 1945 when Nazi Germany surrendered. At that time, Iran was already under the full control of Britain and Russia (mostly the British), essentially a colony like India was. This invasion was necessary because Reza Shah was attempting to play neutral while supplying the Nazi war machine with crude oil necessary for its logistical world domination. "Iran" in Persian means "The Land of the Aryans," which Persia abruptly changed its name to in 1935, just as it was becoming friendly toward the Germans. After the war was over, Britain had a number of privately owned fields, purchased legally from the owners of the land. When Iran elected Mosaddegh to nationalize the oilfields, they did so illegally. Their country or not, the heart of libertarianism is the right to free exchange and free markets. Unless you agree that the United States can simply seize the property of any foreign corporation who operates in any way through the United States, you cannot support the right of anyone, anywhere to loot by law. The course of action taken by the West was perhaps morally wrong. But it was in response to a moral wrong, not the initiation of one. I find that very few internet historians know the history of Iran before 1953. This has always seemed odd to me -- where are you all getting your similarly edited information?

The military bases in Islamic lands were widely supported at the time by both governments and peoples. They still celebrate it as a national day of pride. Again, bin Laden considers this the great evil of America because he wanted the local mujahidin to fight Saddam rather than bringing in any Western aid. You may freely be against the Gulf War, but you cannot rationalize that the intervention was innately immoral since the United States determined that losing control of the Kuwait and Saudi oilfields would have been damaging to her interests. In other words, the United States did not initiate force but responded to the initiation of force upon a friend.

The United States used the Taliban to fight the Soviet Empire. I fail to see this as a moral evil.

The United States necessarily has diplomatic relations with all countries who are willing, including bad guys. Egyptians and Tunisians far and away have more warm feelings for the United States than ill-feelings. Only with sources such as Russia Today can you attempt to support the notion that we stood between these leaders and their people. The West was crucial to their overthrow, including freezing of their foreign assets.

Recommended Reading

Islamic Radicalism and Global Jihad History of radical Islam and current resurgence. Takes a look at the old scholars and new.

The Looming Tower Everything leading up to 9/11

Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters Details the Barbary coast slave trade

The Trial of Henry Kissinger Outlines US war crimes

Qur'an My English translation.

Instructions for American Servicemen in Iran During World War II Self explanatory.

The Forever War Solidly good book.

The Rape of Kuwait Iraq war crimes in Kuwait


Edits

• Corrected a couple subject-verb agreements.
  
  
• Added section headers.
  
  
• Added recommended reading list.
  
  
• Reworked a paragraph in the last section.

Hillary Clinton is a mass-murderer in exactly the same sense that Henry Kissinger is a mass-murderer.

Why do we say Henry Kissinger is a mass-murderer? Because of the murderous, imperialist policies he pursued, and proposed/advocated/championed as Secretary of State & National Security Adviser.

See e.g., the charges Christopher Hitchens levels at him: https://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/145552297X

Compare and contrast to Hillary Clinton, and the policies she implemented/advocated/championed as Secretary of State: https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/3/the_libya_gamble_inside_hillary_clinton

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-forgotten-coup-hillary-clintons-dirty-hands-in-the-2009-honduran-coup/5536903

The charge that Henry Kissinger is a mass-murderer is an old one dating from the Vietnam war era. Basically that he backed or authored policies - secret wars, illegal/criminal tactics and methods, support for coups & murderous tyrants, etc - that directly led to the killings & torture of thousands of (innocent) people.

A lot of people & sources have made this case vs Kissinger over the years. Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens are two relatively well known ones. See e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/145552297X

Hillary Clinton - by analogy to Henry Kissinger. It is known, for instance, that as Secretary or State she was instrumental in convincing Obama to back regime change in Libya. She also supported or abetted a coup in Honduras, that is known to have led to the murder & persecution of democratic activists.

There is of course also her consistent record as an uber-hawk (speaking out in support of the bombing of Serbia, Iraq invasion, etc). Although I think to charge someone as a mass-murderer, one ought to limit it to policies & actions one took while in a position of authority, like Secretary of State or NSA (as Kissinger was).

I am specifically talking about claims of realist that you brought up. It is not realism to lie and delay peace deals so your boss can win elections. Or to support murdering dictators because some small group profits economically.

You can go read or watch this excellent piece by the late Hitchens

http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/145552297X

Or stay ignorant with your misplaced confidence.

http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/product-reviews/145552297X/ref=cm_cr_dp_qt_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&showViewpoints=0

He claimed Bill Clinton stole his election, he claimed Nixon was the mastermind behind starting Vietnam.

Christopher Hitchins was just as stupid and crazy as a 9/11 truther.