::::::::
Today, 20th June, the news in the Guardian is of the 3 US soldiers who may face the death penalty because of killing innocent Iraqis. Am I the only one who sees this as strange? Is that not why they are there? And as for the death penalty well ..that will show them that killing is wrong won't it?Why is it OK to flatten entire cities but not shoot up a few locals who managed to escape the shocking awe? We are so selective about how we apply our violence.
Of course, the word "violence" is never used. It is "strikes" or "response" or something like "Rebel strongholds were raided." The words "positions" and "bases" are also used a lot by newsreaders, so much more military sounding than "houses", or worse, "homes". I mean a "home", sounds like it might have people in it.
And "targets in Gaza" sound provocative, like they should be attacked, like a dart board should have darts thrown at it. What about "Military action was taken against suspected insurgents"? This covers all events from UN peacekeepers struggling in Bosnia, through to the Nazis levelling Guernica. Blair was talking about Fallujah, "..when the Americans went in....". That is like "I went into the quiet pub."
After the Russians intervened in trouble-spots in Afghanistan, I heard an English language news report from Moscow, "Terrorists attacked a convoy outside Kabul....". How dare they say that? These were not "terrorists". They were "freedom fighters!" They only became terrorists later, when they fought us!
I wonder what the Romans would have thought......"Members of the Senate, the fundamentalist Boudicea has been threatening the provisional administration in Londinium again. And she is still armed with those ballistae we gave her, to fight the Picts for us...."
