Friendly Terrorists
makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you
--When You Wish Upon a Star, Harline and Washington
Sprinkle some fairy dust on the bastard
--The Troggs, overheard on bootleg recording
And 40 years on, the republican party takes up the Troggs' approach.
More goodies from the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page (Who is a Terrorist?, 10/27-28/07.)
Can anybody buy this obfuscation? This is not tricky, friends: If they want to blow you out of your shorts, then they are not your friends. We suppose in the backstabbing world of the WSJ-readin' movers and shakers, it is not so easy to differentiate friend from foe.
What the Journal meant to say is, you're a terrorist, unless you work for us. Then you are helping, "freedom fighters, agitating for causes that the U.S. government supports." Yes folks, in the conservative stratosphere, it is the bald-faced. Blink, and things are what you say they are.
The article celebrates last week's State Department waiver of terrorist designation for those who have supported terrorists who've aided U.S. causes, "like Cuba's Alzados -- who provided 'material support' to fighters trying to topple repressive governments," per our designation repressive
While the decision "won't help the freedom fighters, whom the law still dubs terrorists, congress is working on the problem." They reassure us that some senators are trying to insert a clause into a bill "that would let the government pardon both freedom fighters and those who gave them material support." One man's meat is another's poison.
Of course, the rational answer to the supposed dilemma is, if they are freedom fighters opposing repressive governments, AND they use terror tactics, then they are terrorists. If you're Gregory Hines and you use terror tactics, you're Gregory Hines, tap-dancing terrorist. That you have dancing facility which brings pleasure to audiences does not erase the fundamental fact that you are a terrorist (albeit an entertaining one.) Plain and simple.
Saying that some terrorists are not really terrorists because they are good terrorists, "killing for causes the U.S. supports," belies the bogus nature of the entire Phony War on Terror (©).
Most insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan view themselves as freedom fighters opposing a repressive foreign army of occupation and repression. Another simple, if inconvenient, fact. It all boils down to whose ox is being gored.
Ranger believes that definition of a terrorist does not reside upon the ideology of the terrorist. There are no moral relativity clauses invoked when terrorists conduct their illegal activity
A stray example: When Carlos Posada blew up a Cuban airliner this was a terroristic act, even though it was aimed at Cuba, a regime the U.S. doesn't like. But he was a CIA operative in that act of terrorism, so his terror was of the good sort. Inconveniently, 53 innocent Cubans died in that explosion.
Hint: Posada has never been punished for his part in this bombing, and still lives freely in the U.S., Castro is still in power, and those people are still dead. Yeah, democracy is messy.
Isn't freedom swell?Labels: definition of terrorist, friendly terrorist, hmong and montagnard terrorist waiver, who is a terrorist?
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:54 PM
6 Comments:
the only thing that separates a freedom fighter and a terrorist is winning
gerry adams of sein fein
"the only thing that separates a freedom fighter and a terrorist is winning"
And so it has been throughout history, since history is always written by the winners. The heroes of every revolution (including the American one) were terrorists in somebody's eyes.
MB,
Apt statement from Mr. Adams--not only who's winning; who's using you.
As I've written b/f, Adams was feted at a White House dinner, so much for the concept that the U.S.doesn't deal with terrorists. Only if they're wearing a black tie.
kootenay,
In the spectrum of warfare, which our military seems to have forgotten or ignores, all revolutionary movements go through clear and distinct developmental phases. Early on, they all utilize terrorist tactics.
I view the American revolutionaries more at common criminals or traitors than terrorists. They had a clearly-defined objective. They were breaking the rules of their monarchy, but, they didn't torture Hessian soldiers, and they didn't throw seaman overboard at the Boston Tea Party.
Even before the definition arose in the Napoleonic wars, the American revolutionaries could be designated "guerrillas," or, unconventional soldiers through their experiences with the Indians.
Once the Continental Army was formed, then this became a true revolutionary war.
let us not forget that menachem begin was also dining at the white house, during the british mandate of palestine he was a commander in the irgun whose main action was the bombing of the king david hotel in jerusalem right before a scheduled stay of elizabeth II.
all during our revolution there were guerrilla actions, often coordinated with the regular army field commanders. ethan allen, george rodgers, francis marion and a host of others would have all been hanged or shot in the field had they been captured. marion especially provoked harsh and brutal responses from the british under cornwallis. whole towns were burned out, whole communities razed their fields salted and their wells poisoned.
one of the inhibiting facts of revolution is that it always starts from a position of criminality and treason.
when patrick henry cried give me liberty or give me death! he truly and clearly understood that he was talking about a one, or the other, proposition.
MB,
And don't forget terrorist-til-the end Yassir Arafat was also accorded 1/3 of the Nobel Peace prize in 1994.
Post a Comment
<< Home