H'mmm: the commondreams.org site seems to be decidedly biased. But I have a feeling that there are few if any sites for "unbiassed" information.
The thing is, how far back do you want to go? For at least six decades, every side has been able to justify their actions as self-defense/justice for the actions of the others. I have a kind of desire to blame the British for the whole thing (much as I blame the French for the Indochina wars), because in retreating from their empire they deliberately -- or so it seems -- drew lines (like the ones around India/Pakistan) that would create maximum conflict among the locals; and they did similarly in the Middle East.
I'm not sure how far back I want to go. At this point I'd settle for a scorecard. :-) Who are the main groups? Who are their leaders? What are their positions? How do they justify them? Who are their allies? Who are their enemies? It doesn't break down to nation states, even though nations are involved.
As far as British accountability, maybe so. It seems to me on some level part of the conflict is the invented nations. Weren't most of those nation's boundaries drawn by third parties with no understanding of how the people living there would naturally affiliate themselves? That's why there's Kurd and other ethnic groups spread all over in separate countries. Anyway I shouldn't be expressing opinions on things I know so little about. Which is why I'm trying to get eddycated. :)
I know, I know, you weren't asking for our personal opinions... my point really is that opinions are almost all there is to find at this point; there is no unbiassed viewpoint on where/how all this crap started.
*sigh* I thought what I was asking might be impossible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-18 10:30 pm (UTC)The thing is, how far back do you want to go? For at least six decades, every side has been able to justify their actions as self-defense/justice for the actions of the others. I have a kind of desire to blame the British for the whole thing (much as I blame the French for the Indochina wars), because in retreating from their empire they deliberately -- or so it seems -- drew lines (like the ones around India/Pakistan) that would create maximum conflict among the locals; and they did similarly in the Middle East.
I'm not sure how far back I want to go. At this point I'd settle for a scorecard. :-) Who are the main groups? Who are their leaders? What are their positions? How do they justify them? Who are their allies? Who are their enemies? It doesn't break down to nation states, even though nations are involved.
As far as British accountability, maybe so. It seems to me on some level part of the conflict is the invented nations. Weren't most of those nation's boundaries drawn by third parties with no understanding of how the people living there would naturally affiliate themselves? That's why there's Kurd and other ethnic groups spread all over in separate countries.
Anyway I shouldn't be expressing opinions on things I know so little about. Which is why I'm trying to get eddycated. :)
I know, I know, you weren't asking for our personal opinions... my point really is that opinions are almost all there is to find at this point; there is no unbiassed viewpoint on where/how all this crap started.
*sigh* I thought what I was asking might be impossible.