The Blame The Victims Rant (Up with the strong, down with the weak)

I'd like to ask one simple question: Just what kind of country are we? What kind of people are we? And I'm not just talking about Canada and Canadians, but the whole Western world. Do we really see ourselves as the champions of the strong over the weak? Are we really for the oppressors rather than the oppressed? The colonizers rather than the colonized?

Yes, I'm at least partly referring to Israel and their treatment of the Palestinians (and at times the Lebanese as well), but I'm also talking about many other conflicts around the world. It seems that we now, in almost all cases, side with those in power; that is, those doing the most killing, oppressing and terrorizing; those committing the worst war crimes and human rights abuses. And when I say "we" I, of course, mean the "we" represented by our governments and the majority of our media.

Aside from the Darfur conflict in Sudan, it seems we've taken sides AGAINST the weak, the oppressed, the downtrodden and the victimized in just about every conflict and struggle around the globe in recent years; AGAINST people who are only fighting for that which we all take for granted and accept as our inherent rights. So, seriously, what the hell's wrong with us? That's what I want to know.

For instance, what kind of sad joke is it that our government calls the Tamil Tigers a "terrorist organization" that can not be negotiated with, let alone supported, but at the same time fully supports the Sri Lankan government in their fight against "terrorism"? Do we have no sense of justice? No sense of history? Are we even interested in the background of this nasty civil war? I mean, these are people - the Tamils of Sri Lanka - who have been systematically discriminated against, oppressed and - even before the civil war began - occasionally slaughtered in large numbers. During this war the government forces, by all accounts, have been guilty of horrendous war crimes, such as going into Tamil villages and slaughtering every civilian they could find. And we're not talking about some isolated incident here; on the contrary, it was a regular feature of the early years of the war. Then there were the death squads, the torture, etc. etc. Yet the Canadian government, along with most Western countries, has labeled the Tamils alone as "terrorists" and has 100% sided with the Sri Lankan government. What a load of crap!!

The Tamil Tigers sure as hell aren't innocent, but the idea that they're terrorists and the government isn't is completely, totally and utterly asinine. How ridiculous is it for us to completely write off one side in an archetypical civil war? Why, tell me, do the Tamils have no right to fight for their own independent homeland? And how can you say one side can't even be talked to or negotiated with?

Same thing with the Maoists in Nepal, who are now part of peace talks with the government and have ceased fighting after, duh!, negotiations.

And has anyone ever heard of the IRA? Well, I do believe they became part of the governing coalition in Northern Ireland only after years of, duh!, negotiations.

But we're now told that all contact with groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka is criminal. Hello?! The only way you ever come to any real peace is through negotiations. A pre-schooler could probably tell you that. But our government instead chooses to label one side in most on-going conflicts around the world as "terrorists" and then proceeds to outlaw all contact and negotiations with them. Forget about justice for the moment and just think of practicality. This is moronic!!

And, by the way, what should the Lebanese and Palestinians do/have done, simply accept decades of occupation and oppression? Was Hezbollah wrong to fight back against the 18 years of Israeli occupation of a large part of their country? Should they have just sheepishly accepted Israel's superior military might and an indefinite occupation? Is that what people in, say, America, Australia, France, England or Canada would do?

Shouldn't we have also labeled the ANC in South Africa a "terrorist organization" and shunned them in favor of the regime in power (the white apartheid regime)? Shouldn't we have stood against all the rebel (terrorist?) movements that fought to liberate their countries from their colonial masters in the last century (as the Palestinians continue to do today)? Shouldn't we have aligned ourselves against the French Resistance in their fight against German occupation? That is, shouldn't we have supported the German colonizers simply because they had become the established, entrenched power? Because that seems to be how we run our foreign policy today. Whatever the established reality on the ground - no matter how unjust - we support, while we oppose any and all violent resistance by the oppressed.

But the thing is, Canada excepted, the heroes of most countries around the world, including our neighbors to the south, are largely people who rose up in arms against what they considered unjust conditions. However, the conditions that most of these groups that we today label as "terrorists" started their fights against were exceedingly worse than anything that, say, the American revolutionaries were suffering under. The hypocrisy, especially by America, is preposterous: "Yeah, we rose up because we were being taxed without representation, you better believe it, what would you expect us to do? But, hell no, YOU shouldn't fight just because your people are occasionally massacred, denied the right to speak their own language, denied equal rights to education, employment, etc. And, no it doesn't matter if many of your mothers have been raped and your siblings killed. Do NOT fight back! That'd make you terrorists! And terrorists are evil."

Screw that! My sympathy and support always has and always will lie with the oppressed: the Kurds, the Kashmiris, the Kosovars, the Palestinians, the Chechens, the East Timorese, the blacks of South Africa, the Tamils of Sri Lanka, etc, etc, etc.

What I don't understand is how anyone could be for the oppressors? It's truly mind-boggling. I'd suppose it originates from the fact that few people know the history of each conflict and only get the ridiculous "terrorist this, terrorist that" propaganda from the Western media and governments.

Me, well, I have no problem supporting "terrorists" if that's what you're going to call all the people around the world fighting to throw off the chains of oppression and domination, fighting for their freedom, independence and dignity. I am and always have been a proud supporter of all sorts of "terrorists" whether they be the ANC, the rebel movements fighting the American-supported, funded and armed fascist regimes throughout Latin America during the Cold War, the Chechens, the Palestinians, the Kurds and all the rest. The way I see it, you're either for justice or you're for the established horror that is the status quo in so many parts of the world.

We can sit here living our luxurious comfortable lives and condemn these people for wanting their dignity and freedom, sure we can... but of course that'd simply make us a nation of assholes!! And I, myself, don't really want to be an asshole.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely don't always support the methods of many of these groups, especially not the despicable intentional killing of innocents; but, like I keep saying, the regimes in power are usually guilty of using much more vicious tactics and of killing far more innocent civilians than the so-called "terrorists" are.

For instance, the whole world cried for those children killed 2 years ago in Beslan and condemned those responsible for seizing innocent children, and rightfully so, but where is the rage at the deaths of between one and two hundred thousand Chechens killed by Russian forces over the past decade? Where are the cries of condemnation and outrage at Russia? Why is the Russian government not labeled a "terrorist organization"? Why are they given a free pass to slaughter civilians? To carpet bomb cities? What right do they have to continue to colonize Chechnya anyway?

Anyone with even a slight understanding of the history of Chechnya and the systematic victimization the people there have suffered under Russian rule should certainly find it all but impossible to be against the Chechens in their struggle for independence and freedom; anyone with any sense of justice, that is. Simply put, it's not about a few hundred dead innocent Russians, it's all about the hundreds of thousands of dead innocent Chechens. Or it should be, if the mainstream media and our governments actually presented us with some truth and not just Russian propaganda.

Or take the Kurds, a group of 20 million people without a homeland. Whether we're talking about Turkey or Iraq, they have had a clear moral right to fight for their dignity, their freedom, and their own homeland. Not just in Iraq under Saddam, but most definitely in Turkey too. They've been treated like shit in Turkey for most of the past 80 years and until recently their language and culture were outlawed. Simply saying you were a Kurd was a crime. Seriously! Everyone in Turkey was by law a "Turk". And, as usual, in the civil war in Turkey, just as when Saddam ruthlessly tried to crush the Kurdish resistance in Iraq, the most evil (massacres, ethnic cleansing, torture, etc.) has, without a doubt, been committed by the country's armed forces and police. And that's a fact (a fact that, just for being stated, could land me in prison in Turkey).

The fact is that most of these fights started in self-defense. It's as simple as that. The good guys are rarely, if ever, the national governments that we're told, in no uncertain terms, to cheer for. Again, who supports the bully, the brutes, the colonizers, the oppressors? Well, Canada and the rest of the mighty hypocritical West, that's who.

Which brings me back to my original question: What the %&$# are we doing supporting the strong against the weak, the tormentors over the tormented, the major war criminals over the minor? One group (these countries' governments) are fighting simply to preserve territory held, no matter how unjustly, while the other is fighting for their freedom and independence. It would seem a simple choice, wouldn't it? Who cares, for instance, if Turkey's and Iraq's borders shrink somewhat? It's hardly of any major moral significance. But the Kurds finally being given their own country, now that would be something to celebrate.

I mean, come on people, is this really how we want to be known, as supporters of a might-makes-right philosophy/world view? And is this really how we want our foreign policy run, as a cold-hearted, amoral policy of realpolitik, with no moral considerations whatsoever?

If our government wants to continue to support the powerful and express disgust and contempt for the oppressed all I guess I can do is express my own disgust, shame and embarrassment... and continue to rant... and, yes, vocally support all sorts of so-called "terrorist organizations" around the world.

Mike Cowie (Oredakedo)
Sunday, August 27th, 2006


For more on this topic try this: The Throwin' Off The Shackles Rave: First Kosovo, Now The World


Or, for a different type of rant, try this: It's Called Conservativitus: The Pity The Conservatives Rant


And for lots more on politics visit the Politics Homepage


MikesAndDislikes Home


In real life sibling rivalry, bullies, oppressors can be found everywhere, in our homes, amongst our associates, in our communities, on the net, in politics, civil and public services, even in the churches as well. These are the people who falsely abuse others and despise the human rights of others, and they falsely do think now that God himself approves of it or overlooks it all.. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who has read my blogs I rightfully still do not give an unconditional support for Israel’s past, present, future actions or reactions and I am not an anti Semite..