Benevolent Terror

Kola Odetola doesn't sit on the fence. Agree or disagree, it's still a thinker.

via Media Lens Messageboard

[For more check out the Global Echo]

"Hamas and Winston Churchill

Hamas kills innocent people in a campaign of terror? yes they unnaceptably do. But so did Winston Churchill who launched a cruel campaign of ferocious terror bombing on German civilains during the second world war incinerating tens of thousands of women, pensioers and children in their own homes for the crime of being born German.

There was no ambiguity about the aim, it was to terrorise ordinary Germans into withdrawing support from their country's war effort, it was also a war crime, though you would struggle to hear it ever described thus in this part of the world

Historians, pundits and commentators and even many ordianry people accept it as a necessary evil aimed at preserving England's independence and ancient freedom's.

So why the outrage at the suicide bombings by Hamas on innocent civilains, acts cleary as cruel and cold blooded as the 'great' Churchill's and with the same objective, preserving the independence and rights of an equally historic people..

If the English are alowed to commit war crimes to defend their freedom's why aren't the Palestinians?

When the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, there was no attempt to disguise the objective - to so terrify the japanese people, who were the obvious target, as to not only force a surrender, but to serve as a chilling warning to all nations (especially non white ones) on the terrible consequences of threatening American freedoms and rights.

Can someone please tell me the difference between the bomb at Hiroshima and the one on a bus in jerusalem, beyond the fact that one probably killed a score, the other 100,000, and that one bomb was delivered by a person who was ready to kil but not to die, and the other by a person was at least ready to share the fate of those he murdered?

Can we honestly say, beneath all our fine sentiments and noble ideals that the rights of white nations are not regarded as more important, more valuable, far more unquestionable that those of darker skinned ones? Including the right to commit heinous crimes and get away, nay even be regarded as 'gisnts of history because of it?

Or maybe as Trotsky said it all depends on who writes the history.

So, probably if in 100 years time the Arabs restore the international dominance they lost 500 years ago, we'll see TV docu soaps of smiling distinguished guests, in savoil row suits and benevolent smiles discussing in between benign interuptions by a popular TV hostess and an engrossed, respectable audience, the merits of the two final candidates for the popular TV man of the century awards - Sheikh Yassin of Hamas or Ayatollah Nasarullah of Hizbollah?

Killers they might be but a hundred years earlier the series was one by an even bigger killer - Sir Winston Churchill."