Quite ironic really that the American military has helicopters called Apache and missiles named Tomahawks, both names taken from the people they slaughtered and then rounded up into reservations while they stole their land.
If a country tried that these days the International community would be installing no fly zones over North America to protect the Native American Indians who would probably be armed and held up as freedom fighters or rebels.
Or would they? In Kosovo, the KLA massacred whole villages of Serbs and when the Serbs fought back, they were the bad guys and the KLA the ones who NATO rushed to help. Look at Israel who murder and steal Palestinian land and when the Palestinians fight back, it is they who are the terrorists.
In Libya, those trying to overthrow the Government are the freedom fighters while in Northern Ireland the IRA attempting the same thing were terrorists.
It's confusing this freedom fighter/terrorist/rebel/insurgent thing.
Menachem Begin was the leader of the terror group the Irgun who bombed and massacred but picked up a Nobel Peace Prize while the CIA-funded, heroic, anti-Soviet fighters the mujhadeen led by Osama bin Laden becomes the world’s most wanted terrorist group. One time friends to the west Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi are now in the history books as murdering tyrants who had to be removed from power.
Nelson Mandela went from terrorist to international statesman while Fidel Castro has had countless attempts on his life by America after he overthrew the corrupt Batista Government. The Taliban are invited to the White House and described as 'the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers' and a few years later are being violently ousted by the same people who lauded them.
Who decides these things? The UN? The West? The Government being targeted?
Was Gandhi or the American colonies terrorists for wanting to overthrow British rule or the Bolsheviks for removing their king?
One can only conclude that the criteria for either being a freedom fighter or a terrorist is whether the person describing them likes them and it is the world powers that decide whether you are a fighting for your freedom against the Government or terrorising it.
4 comments:
As they say, Lucy: What's in a name?
The U.S. and its Allies until recently happily supported all manner of Brutal Despots (like Mubarak), Tyrannical Kings (like the Saudi Royal Family) and Genocidal Regimes (like Israel).
The situation has changed so now you'll find that Black is sometimes White and White is sometimes Black except where Grey is in favour.
Saudi tanks are in Bahrain to help put down rebellious citizens. U.K and French fighter jets are bombing Gadaffi in Libya with a little help from the U.S. who is not really there (though it has fired a few Tomahawks at someone). It's a bit like the 50,000 American troops who are not still in Iraq.
What is going to happen is that a massive propaganda campaign will be launched shortly to bring confused world citizens up to date with who are the goodies now and who are the baddies!
Whatever is claimed, it could change any minute depending on whether America's interests are being served which seems to be the guiding principle for our world!
I've also noted how quickly and guillessly our media have taken to labelling the anti-Gaddafi forces as 'pro-democracy'. Truth is: Some are, some aren't. Saying 'anti-Gaddafi' would be considerably more accurate, and less value-laden. Our media don't use the more accurate term though, because they're tools. Just like many of them said all post-invasion attacks on US forces in Iraq was perpetrated by 'terrorists'. The abuse of the language continues unabated.
lucy,
everybody is looking out for their own interests. even david g. the enemy of my enemy is my ally - in the right situtation.
yesterday obama said "we make decisions based on our secruity interest not consistency".
hillary said "we don't have any perfect choices in Lybia. we have to pick the best from a list of several bad options".
q
Using the 'security interests' excuse is a favorite pretext of the U.S., Q. even when that nation has the world's biggest army that no one can challenge, certainly not Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Libya, etc.
America is trying to dominate the world. Why else do you need 1,000 military bases?
Post a Comment