OT Caution!! IRA funding
|From:||Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 19:16|
>The only deliberate Govt-sponsored terroristic activities (that I can think
>of in recent years) would be Guatemala, and our Contra affair in Nicaragua.
>Of the former, most Americans have been and remain blissfully unaware; the
>latter was so hopelessly mis-managed and corrupt (not to say wrong) that the
>people and even Congress eventually rose up in revulsion.
>I have to say that this is untrue. One of the most ironic things about
the US government's crusade against terrorism is that by any fair
definition of the word (no word games, no "counter-terrorism" etc to
hide what it really is) the US is one of the world's biggest terrorist
states. Not that the UK government doesn't do similar things at times,
along with the French etc.. but the US is in the lead by a long way. I
suspect that the US government would try to argue that their blowing
things and people up was for a good cause, but then again I'm sure the
palestinians, the israelies, the iranians, the syrians, and just about
everyone else would argue the same thing. Unfortunately the right thing
depends on your point of view. :)
>If a nation is going to aspire in any way to some kind of imperial hegemony,
>stupid mistakes are going to occur, even with the most benign of motives.
>Deliberate evil is somewhat rarer, isn't it?
>The British Empire, the Russian, the French, the Spanish, the Ottoman...the
>Roman...have I left anyone out?
>Very few people think what they are doing is evil. Most of the Nazis
thought they were doing what was right for their people, the same with
the British soldiers who put people in some of the first concentrations
camps, opened fire on peacefully protesting civilians in Indian etc in
the days of our empire. Everyone thinks they're on the right side, and
its so easy to rationalize any act when you think that your goals are
good. Until everyone agrees that the end doesn't always justify the
means (which in practice is never) things will always be the same.
>>The word "America", in
>>this context, was almost universally taken by Americans to mean "the
>>American government", whereas it was almost universally taken by
>>non-Americans to mean "the American populace".
>Well, as you see, I fall into the first category; I'm truly surprised at the
>second-- everything one hears, even from the Arab world nowadays, certainly
>suggests to me that non-Americans are quite capable of distinguishing the
>two, indeed eager to do so.
>I differentiate the two in thought, but not always in speech, depending
upon whether the context makes it clear or not. If I'm confident people
will know which I mean, I will just say "America". And yes, I have said
before that "America was funding the IRA", by which I meant part of the
american people, not the american government itself. One of the few
troubled areas where they weren't sponsoring terrorism. :)