The main point I am emphasising is one rule for USA, and another for the rest of the world. People like BakerStreet mention that terrorists should go on hunger strikes... If pakistan sent some troops and desicrated the USA, would the people of USA sit on their hands and starve to death? |
Let's not mention the fact that hunger strikes get you no where. Remember the '81 hunger strikes by IRA prisoners fighting to be recognized as political prisioners and not ordinary decent criminals? Of course not, you weren't even born, were you? Anyway, Thatcher let Bobby Sands and 9 other die refusing to negotiate. The lesson that was learned was that nonviolence doesn't get you any further than violence. No concessions were going to be made by the British Government, and in the meantime 10 "volunteers" perished. (On an aside: Everyone should read Nor Meekly Serve My Time. It's an incredible account from inside the H-Block during the strikes. Whether or not you agree with the IRA, the book certainly sheds light on their perspective and motives).
Muggaz, the double standard is stronger than you're stating. Look at the IRA again. Where do they get their funding from? Until 9/11 it was predominantly coming from the US. It's sad that we Americans had little problem throwing some money into a tip jar in a 'RA bar in NYC knowing full well that the money was not being added to the Republican Library Fund. So why, after supporting armed struggle elsewhere did we expect the world to mourn with us on 9/11. I was actually in Belfast on 9/11 and I can't tell you the number of times that I was greeted with, "yes, it's a very sad day, but now you know how we feel, what we've been going through." It was a startling wake up call.
It all just leads me back to the question: "who decides who is a terrorist?" I haven't got the answer, though I've attempted to answer it twice in blogs. The first met with bitter critism accusing me of "giving terrorists ideas." The other has been virtually ignored.