It has often been said that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Certainly this statement has been proven true at various times in recorded history. Few could argue that the Jewish patriots who died in the mountain fortress of Massada were freedom fighters, yet to their Roman overlords they were undoubtedly thought of as terrorists, and criminals. One of the earliest and more heroic of the "freedom fighter" genre, is Robin of Loxley, aka Robin Hood. This "outlaw" is still considered by many to be the protoypical freedom fighter and folk hero, but to the political establishment under the Regency of Prince John, he was undoubtedly considered an outlaw and a terrorist. But we need not look so far back in history or so far away as there have been more than a few notable examples of the Terrorist/Freedom Fighter dichotomy right here in the good old USA.
The first American example of the terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy is the organization founded by Sam Adams prior to the start of the American Revolution, the Sons of Liberty. While to most patriotic Americans, these men were the original freedom fighters in our nation's history, to the Tory politicians and British loyalists as well as today's more liberal historical textbook authors, this was a terrorist organization. In the strictly esoteric definition of the word, the Sons of Liberty WERE terrorists. They often employed mob tactics and they did indeed terrorize the targets of their political disagreements. Sometimes this was simple intimidation done by vandalizing property or the more extreme measure of hanging the target in effigy or burning the effigy in front of the intended victim and his family. When the "simple" method failed, they sometimes resorted to the more "personal" attack on the unfortunate person manifesting in either simply assaulting the unfortunate individual, or the more cruel and extremely humiliating act of "tarring and feathering." In this practice, the hapless politician or government official would be overwhelmed physically, restrained, stripped to the waist, and his skin would be coated in hot tar and before the tar cooled, a feather pillow would be opened and the individual would be covered in a layer of chicken or goose feathers.
Now one can only imagine how painful being captured, assaulted, stripped, and painted with hot tar might be. Surely it resulted in second if not third degree burns to the skin as just as likely resulted in loss of a layer or two of skin as it was removed. Then, factor in the humiliation of being paraded around town to be seen by friend and foe alike in this most embarassing condition. Given that these barbarities were more often than not perpetrated as a result of political disagreements, you could easily conclude that the Sons of Liberty were indeed terrorists AND psychopaths, but they were "fighting" for the freedom of the American colonies from the tyranny of the British monarchy which makes them freedom fighters. And since we are the beneficiaries of that liberty they fought for, we should never think of them as anything BUT freedom fighters and patriots for that is EXACTLY what they were.
Another example of this dichotomy can be found in the person of John Brown. John Brown raised a civilian militia to fight to keep the then lawful institution of slavery out of Kansas, and ultimately to abolish the institution altogether and free the thousands of African slaves from bondage. His tactics included mob violence, vandalism, assault, arson, rape, and murder so in that regard he is both a terrorist and a psychopath. He was unapologetic about any acts and atrocities committed by him or his followers because he believed his cause justified his actions. This makes him a psychopath, but since he was fighting for the liberties of thousands of people who were in fact enslaved, he is also a freedom fighter. He met his end when he attempted to invade a federal arsenal to steal weapons to arm slaves so they would fight in rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States and when he was captured by then Colonel Robert E. Lee, he was charged with sedition and treason and executed as a criminal. To his victims he was a psychopath and a terrorist, but to history and to the descendents of those slaves, and to many other Americans today, he was a freedom fighter and a hero. Strangely the same can be said of Robert E. Lee as well.
To my possibly oversimplified way of thinking, to be labeled a "freedom fighter" you must FIRST be fighting for FREEDOM, either your own, or someone else's. The examples I've given thus far surely meet that test. However, there are those on the LEFT, especially the Hollywood Left, that want to consider the likes of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (shown above), as the POSTER CHILDREN of freedom fighters. Sadly, I think the many Cuban expatriates who daily brave 90 miles of shark infested ocean in the flimsiest of homemade water craft for a chance at the REAL freedom of the United States, might tend to disagree with that characterization. Indeed, Fidel Castro WON his fight, so where's the FREEDOM he ostensibly fought for? It's nowhere to be found on the whole island of Cuba, if you believe the accounts of any resident of Miami's "Little Havana" district. The same can be said for any leftist country in the WORLD today, yet those on the LEFT side of our own political system continue to sing the praises of the likes of Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro and now that latest liberal fantasy leader, Hugo Chavez. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there are those on the LEFT that have NO understanding of what freedom actually IS. How else can you account for their embrace of totalitarian DICTATORS as freedom fighters.
Another example the LEFT frequently get WRONG is the Islamic extremist/Terrorist. While celebrities like Roise O'Donnell proclaim that the muslim terrorists are just like we are, fighting for their home and family, you have to wonder what she's been smoking. First of all, most suicide bombers and terrorists HAVE no immediate families. Second, they represent no sovereign state, and what they are actually fighting FOR is to force the world into a state of total submission to a way of life not seen on this earth since the centuries were measured in single digits. What THEY are fighting for is the total antithesis of FREEDOM. And the WOMEN who champion their cause, would be the first to be killed by them. Rosie O'Donnell would certainly not enjoy a celebrity lifestyle under sharia extremism. She would even be KILLED for refusing to submit herself to a MAN as her husband. Her own FATHER would likely have killed her the moment she revealed her homosexuality to him because under sharia law, homosexuality by EITHER sex is a sin and therefore a CRIME. Look at how many muslim fathers are killing their daughters just for wearing makeup and tight jeans? Those guys are just so TOLERANT, aren't they?
Why the political and social LEFT in this country can't seen to grasp the simple FACT that there are people both in and outside this country who want to KILL us for no reason other than we EXIST, is beyond me. They want to deny civil rights and protections to AMERICAN citizens with whom they have a political disagreement on a daily basis, but they can't give our civil liberties to people who are neither entitled to nor deserving of them, fast enough. They want to deprive Americans of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but they want TERRORISTS and KILLERS to have the full protections of our judicial system and our overall way of life, which these terrorists and killers want to wipe from the face of the earth. Does that make sense to anyone?
Last, but certainly not least, why is it that so many of the LEFT and extremists in both our country and the countries that spawn the most terrorism come from parents who have succeeded in thier lives allowing their children to have the best of everything at little to no effort on their part? Classic examples of this are Usama Bin Laden himself, Ayman Al Zawahiri, and even the "knicker-bomber" who tried to blow up the flight to Detroit on Christmas Day. These were all men who came from privileged and sucessful families. The most liberal men and women in this country come from country club backgrounds and ivy league educations. Even the "Mad Major" Nadal Hassan got the best education this country could offer for FREE, and look how he expressed his gratitude. Likewise with President Barak Obama himself, and William Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Cass Sunstein, and Van Jones, too. The only exception to this is the hollywood celebrities, many of who came from middle class backgrounds or worse. THEY are liberals out of a sense of guilt, because that's the classic recruitment issue for liberals. They are apologetic and feel guilty for their success, just as they are ashamed of and apologetic for the stature of the United States in relation to the rest of the world. This perhaps accounts for their willingness, even EAGERNESS, to bring it to economic and social RUIN. Fairness is all, after all, if you're a liberal. To bad they don't feel the need to extend that "fairness" to the people that actually WORK for and EARN their success.
The thing the liberals just don't seem to get is that if they weaken this country, the people who will overrun it and want to kill us will make NO distinction between them and the rest of us. They may be USED, much as the "sonderkommandos" were used by the Nazis in the concentration camps to help control and exterminate their fellow Jews, but they will only be buying time, because their turn will come. I wonder how Susan Sarandon and Lindsey Lohan would like living in Usama Bin Laden's world? My guess is not very much, but if we get overrun by these extremists, that's EXACTLY the world we'll be living in. Do YOU want to see Megan Fox in a birkha r rather than a bikini on the cover of Maxim? I don't want to see her PERIOD, but if I did, I would want to SEE her cuz the visual is all there is from what I can tell.
As for psychopaths all terrorists are psychopaths, and SOME freedom fighters have a touch of psychopathy in their constitution as well. Anyone who can take human lives without regret, remorse, or even sympathy is a psychopath. As for politicians, there's some pathology at play there, too. There HAS to be to convert elected representatives into dictatorial rulers. And the way our current crop feel that their judgment is superior to the vast majority of their constituents can only lead one to the conclusion that they no longer feel any obligation to respect the will of the people they purport to represent. Thomas Jefferson, the founding father that founded the Democratic Party, once said: "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is TYRANNY." That makes THEM tyrants, and the enforcement of their fiats is likely to make them terrorists as well. Whether it is arrogance, hubris, or chutzpah on their parts, our elected representatives have decided to use their political gang to hijack much of this country's economy and they are doing so without concern for political or judicial challenges that may ensue, To me, THAT'S terrorism on par with anything the Islamic extremists are doing. If Usama Bin Laden wants to destroy our way of life, he may already be too late because Barak Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are beating him to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment