Support SF BayView
Donate or Subscribe to SF Bay View
Follow Us Twitter Facebook

Rebel vs. rioter

August 12, 2011

by Natasha Reid

A Libyan "rebel" threatens captured Blacks with a machete.
Lynch Black Libyans and be hailed a rebel by the United Kingdom. Set up on your own path of destruction on the homeland, however, and be hailed a mindless, criminal, opportunist rioter. What’s wrong with this picture?

The Libyan “rebels” have gone on a killing rampage. The English “rioters” have gone on a looting and arson rampage – which has so far taken five lives, regrettably. But how can killing in the thousands be rewarded with rebel status while property destruction – and an unfortunate case of the death of five innocent individuals – qualifies for mindless rioter status?

Because the Libyan rebels are politically motivated and the English “rioters” are not? Corporate media has undertaken a fine job of highlighting the Libyans’ political plight and disguising their disgusting, mindless, criminal actions, while disguising the English political plight and highlighting the elements of the uprising that have been overtaken by so-called mindless, criminal behavior.

Surely, if the frightening behavior of the Libyan rebels can be described as rebellion, so can that of the English “rioters.”

The same country who steps in to aid a group of murderous rebels in their killing spree condemns the “sickening” – David Cameron’s description of the English “riots” – rampage of property destruction on the home turf. Since when did property trump life destruction?

This is a case of “Afghanistanism” at its finest. Robert M. Hutchins used the term in 1955:

“Afghanistanism, as you know, is the practice of referring always to some remote country, place, person or problem when there is something that ought to be taken care of near at home that is very acute. So you say to a professor at Caltech, ‘What about smog?’ and he says, ‘Have you heard about the crisis in Afghanistan?’”

Since when did property trump life destruction?

The U.K. government had everybody thinking about the Libyan crisis, garnering acceptance for its full support for the Libyan “rebels” who seek to overturn Brother Leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. But the U.K. government dismisses any thought of an insurgence in the homeland, where the youth of Great Britain are rebelling against the systems in place in the U.K., branding them as thugs, to be considered far lower than the real thugs in Libya who are undertaking a genocidal mission.

The U.K. government recognized the rebel movement as Libya’s rightful government. Should they remain consistent, they might consider the English rebels as the U.K.’s rightful government.

How long until people realize how wrong this all looks?

Natasha Reid is a writer of Zimbabwean and Scottish descent. She holds an honors law degree, though her real passion lies in journalism and political awareness. You can contact Natasha at tash.reid7@gmail.com.

 

4 thoughts on “Rebel vs. rioter

  1. seamus

    A lot of the Sub-Saharan Africans in Libya are mercs working for Qaddafi or immigrants who worked as mercs for Qaddafi. It's a civil war and rebellion against Qaddafi, a tyrant.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

BayView Classifieds - ads, opportunities, announcements
San Francisco Comcast