|Re: William Blum The Anti-Empire Report #149 By William Blum|
- Tuesday, March 14 2017, 1:35:18 (UTC)|
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Mozilla
>-- But, I don't necessarily disagree with Blum when he contrasts 20th century Latin American guerrillas with 21st century Jihadists regarding the use of force.
..it's a meaningless distinction...what would you and Blum approve of? No head-chopping but lethal injections are ok? Atom bombs on children are ok? It seems to me that once you unleash Christian dogs of war, those same dogs are in a poor position to dictate niceties.
Uruguay's Tupamaros whose comrades were imprisoned and tortured didn't massacre civilians, they went after whom they deemed as responsible:
...tell that to Bush, who attacked and occupied Iraq and helped starve to death 700,000 Iraqi babies for 9/11 when it was his pals and investors the Saudis who formed the bulk of those responsible. Did THEY go after the right babies? No. So why lecture Muslims?
Dan Mitrione, who was teaching various South American governments' state and security forces methods of repression, with his expertise being in torture. He'd round up homeless people with the promise of payment and food, and would use them as guinea pigs in his exhibitions of torture, eventually ending with his victims dying from slow, excruciating pain. Mitrione was put on trial by the Tupamaros and executed.
..you don't think if Iraqis could get their hands on Bush they'd do the same?
Blum is correct in writing that the Salvadorians who suffered sheer terror (like being skinned alive, or the rape of parent by child in view of the entire village, among other horrors) never committed to the scale of terror compared to that of Da'esh, even though all they had to do was cross the border to hit a number of U.S. cities, or kidnap, rape, torture, and murder American citizens. The only case of American victims I'm aware of is the rape and murder of the four Catholic missionaries... and that was done by the governments' death squads. Neither did the Vietnamese partake in acts like killing journalists or aide workers. Blum is simply making a distinction between the leftist Reds and the rightist Blacks. Even the Iranian Maoists during the early '70s only targeted military contractors and the Shah's security forces, unlike the Khomeini faction who in the late '70s bombed movie theatres full of families, burned down Armenian and Assyrian-owned delis, destroyed record shops, bookstores, cafes, and unleashed a full-frontal attack on women who'd get doused with acid for simply not wearing a chador; or the execution of homosexuals and atheists for being "enemies of god" -- one of their potential targets being the gay Assyrian playwright and painter, Bani, who was luckily out of the country at the time. The Iranian Reds in lieu of destroying entire cinemas (and the people inside of them) instead took over some theatres and showed political films banned under the Shah, like "The Battle of Algiers" or "Z"... until the Blacks set their armed wild dogs loose on them. I think Blum is just pointing out that these guys are regressive, whereas the leftists were/are progressive.
...perhaps the lesson is: don't go stirring up a hornet's nest and then complain that "innocent" people were stung. It is undeniable that the US and Christians started this horror and by making pretty distinctions you and Blum and Maher and Hitchens and the rest are hoping that we'll forgot to assign blame and responsibility where it really belongs, that you'll blind us with horror stories which NO ONE is excusing or ignoring...rather we simply REFUSE to be "won over" by these specious comparisons.
No matter WHAT Muslims are now doing, it comes nowhere close to what Christians did in starving to death innocent babies.....stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.
The full topic:|