Wednesday, July 19, 2006

The Right to Self Defence- but not for Yugoslavia

Spot the Difference:

Country A has its citizens kidnapped and killed by an Islamic terrorist group supported and funded by Country B.

Country A reacts by taking action to free the hostages and defeat the terrorists which Country B then denounces as 'disproportionate' and uses its influence to gain international support for 78 days of air strikes on Country A.

Country C has its citizens kidnapped and killed by an Islamic terrorist group supported and funded by Countries D and E. But this time, County B supports the measures Country C takes in response- even though, unlike in the first example, they involve attacking another sovereign state.


The very same government officials from Country B who condemned Country A's anti-terrorist action appear on television supporting Country C's 'right to self-defence'.

The double standards Country B (the USA) showed towards Yugoslavia (Country A) in 1998/9 and its battle with the KLA and Israel (Country C) today- could not be more glaring.

Especially when one remembers that the 1998/9 hostilities began with the KLA kidnapping Yugoslav postmen and reporters. No one on Sky News thought fit to ask James Rubin, the ubiquitous former Press Officer to Madeline Albright- the man who drooled over the thuggish KLA leader Hashim Thaqi at the Rambouillet stitch-up, why Yugoslavia had no right to carry out any anti-terrorist action on its own soil- but Israel has the right to carry out its anti-terrorist action on another's soil.

As estimated four hundred Lebanese civilians have died in the Israeli offensive- including 11 children playing near a pool today. And half a million Lebanese have become refugees in their own country. The death and destruction reined on Lebanon makes the measured and carefully targeted action Yugoslav forces took against Kosovan Albanian terrorists in 1998/9 pale into insignifance.
But don't hold your breath for Mr Olmert to be indicted for war crimes or be sent on an RAF plane to stand a trial at The Hague.

1 comment:

1defender said...

Have pointed this out to Medialens Editor medialens.org and several others whose addresses I found on their website but have not heard from them yet. The Medialens editor I have hopes for but the others will probably not respond. They have never bothered to in the past.