UN call for Sri Lanka war probe: I knew it. I just knew it is going to happen. There is only one thing more damaging to the reputation of a country than seriously fighting (as opposed to appeasing) terrorists and that is successfully defeating them. The only way such a country can recapture it’s good name is by removing, discrediting and even prosecuting the leader who dared to do the “vile” act. Making the world safe for terrorists has become the top priority of the morally bankrupt so called “humanitarians” organized around the UN. Their basic strategy is to make fighting terrorists illegal under “international law” by demanding that it be done without any collateral damage and terrorists be treated as common criminals. Consider the words of UN’s Under Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes as reported by the BBC:
Mr Holmes said the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) had used civilians as human shields “in the most cynical and brutal way”, but that civilians had also been “affected very badly” by being caught up in army shelling.
The UN’s high commissioner for human rights has called for an independent investigation into alleged atrocities by both sides in Sri Lanka’s civil war.
Drawing a moral, or more appropriately immoral, equivalence between terrorists for whom anything goes and democracies who fight them is no longer a strategy reserved for the “Western imperialist superpowers” such as the US in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israel in Lebanon and Gaza but it even encompasses poor Third world democracies. Indeed, if “humanitarians” have their way, Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, would follow in the footsteps of Alberto Fujimori and be tried and sentenced to 25 years:
Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori was convicted of human rights crimes and sentenced to 25 years in prison on Tuesday, the first time a democratically elected Latin American president has been found guilty in his own country of such offenses.
The people may worship the man who has finally rid the country from the vile Tigers who kidnapped girls and turned them to suicide bombers but, “human rights activists” would work hard to make sure he will be known as a vile murderer. After all, the long suffering peasants once lauded Fujimori as a hero.
Many peasants were unhappy with the Shining Path’s rule for a variety of reasons, such as its disrespect for indigenous culture and institutions, and the brutality of its “popular trials” that sometimes included “slitting throats, strangulation, stoning, and burning.” While punishing and even killing cattle thieves was popular in some parts of Peru, the Shining Path also killed peasants and popular leaders for even minor offenses. Peasants were also offended by the rebels’ injunction against burying the bodies of Shining Path victims.The Shining Path also became disliked for its policy of closing small and rural markets in order to end small-scale capitalism and to starve Lima. As a Maoist organization, it strongly opposed all forms of capitalism, and also followed Mao’s dictum that guerrilla warfare should start in the countryside and gradually choke off the cities. Peasants, many of whose livelihoods depended on trade in the markets, rejected such closures. In several areas of Peru, the Shining Path also launched unpopular campaigns, such as a prohibition on parties and the consumption of alcohol.
Things have changed. The May/June issue of the National Geographic includes the previously terrorist infested region amongst the 50 appropriate destinations for a tour of a life time. BUT the Magazine makes sure it does not give Fujimori or those who sacrificed their lives fighting the vicious Shining Path any credit for saving the Andes from terrorists. Whom does National Geographic credit for the Shining Path’s demise? 29 year old Community organizers like Enrique, Jr., who specialize in “managing expectations.” I kid you not:
Something extraordinarily positive is happening here in Peru. Little more than a decade ago, these mountains were in the throes of a brutal guerrilla war. Maoist rebels shot first and asked questions later, and foreign visitors were sometimes the targets. Yet, on this trip, not a single armed guard, nor a strand of barbed wire, is anywhere to be seen. “Our security comes from the commitments we made to the community,” Enrigue says.
If UN “humanitarians” have their way, Mahinda Rajapaksa would be punished just as Alberto Fujimori has been and George W. Bush and leading members of his administration would be (not to mention the vast majority of Israel’s leaders) . Those fighting and defeating terror groups must be discredited, indeed, punished. It is a small wonder, the Indian government is doing so little to rid itself of the it’s own Maoist insurgents known as Naxalites who are as fond of democracy as Islamists. How else can the world be made safe for terrorists and, hence, for those “humanitarians” whose careersdepend on negotiating endlessly, if unsuccessfully, their appeasement and keeping alive most of their helpless captive populations?!