CLASSIFIED | POLITICS | TERRORISM | OPINION | VIEWS

Hillary Clinton seems to have borrowed Republican Policies.

By Charles Perera

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Presidential candidate has attempted to explain terrorism differently. She is of course intelligent and therefore though her twisted definition of terrorism sounds new she has not at all deviated from the policy of the American State Department on terrorism. This is what Blakes, Holmes and the rest of the foreign meddlers had been saying. It is only those armed monsters who try to terrorise their countries the USA, Britain, Germany are the terrorists. The others, for them are a different variety of terrorists whose acts of terrorism do not affect them. Therefore, for them, they are freedom fighters who have human rights and aspirations and with whom sovereign states should negotiate for political settlements.

If this is the basis on which they act, what the h…. are they doing in Iraq, and Afghanistan. According to Hillary Clinton's argument, are not the USA and the British forces also terrorists in these countries resorting to terror , death and destruction to achieve their objectives ? What did the President Kennedy do by sending CIA led insurgents to Bay of Pigs in Cuba ? Wasn't that terrorism on the part of USA ? Why did USA got CIA to organize anti Allende movements in Chile to over throw the Government of Salvador Allende ? Wasn't that American sponsored terrorism in Chile ? It was reported then that, " …..some of the ClA's money flowed into paramilitary and terrorist groups such as the notorious Patria y Libertad an extremist private vigilante group..." There are motives that make them acts of terrorism.

Reading through those reports, http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=671
we see more or less the same scenario, in a different form taking place in Sri Lanka, with NGOs, the Free Media, and Human Rights Watch. In Chile USA through its CIA organized the Opposition Parties and Trade Union Leaders to rise against the Marxist Government of Salvador Allende.
Hillary Clinton is right in saying that there are different types of terrorists. Because even the USA government has played that role , and seeks to do so in Iran. But in Sri Lanka the Government is fighting against a home sprung set of terrorists, and our heroic soldiers are giving their lives to liberate their country from being divided by these ruthless terrorists, where as the young Americans are dying in a foreign country fighting against the " freedom fighters" of Iraq.

Hillary Clinton's definition of Terrorists does not fit into American leadership role in the world. If USA seeks that role it has to accept to fight terrorism no matter their motives, the raison d'être. What ever the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Basque Separatists in Spain , or insurgents in al-Anbar are fighting for they are fundamentally and for all purposes terrorists. They are terrorists because they have separated themselves from accepted norms of achieving political objectives. They have taken to arms and kill, their opponents and terrorize innocent people, kidnap their children and make them soldiers or make of them living "bombs", that explode to kill maximum number of people.

Your American children Mme Hillary Clinton are dying fighting other peoples wars, whereas our children in Sri Lanka are fighting their own war against the most wretched blood thirsty set of murderous terrorists, to save their own country and the innocent people. The motive of these uncouth terrorists is to divide Sri Lanka to form their own fascist Eelam in the North East. Because they are not a danger to you (for the moment), and because they are not terrorizing the United States of America they cannot be called by any other name , but as terrorists.

You may not want to lump all terrorists together, because you say their motives are different, even if they use terror for their different "motives". Attacking America and the Americans, cannot be the only motive that justifies a group taking up arms for a political struggle to be called terrorists. If that is so, it is really a lopsided definition of what is terrorism.

If Mme Hilary Clinton the Democratic Presidential candidate is seeking to go to the White House pronouncing borrowed Rebublican Policies on terrorism, using different words, it is far better to elect a Republican Candidate to go to the White House with Repulican Policies.

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com. .

BACK TO LATEST NEWS

DISCLAIMER