Sat | Dec 10, 2016

One man’s terrorist, another man’s hero

Published:Wednesday | April 15, 2015 | 10:44 AM


THE EDITOR, Sir:
Recently, the American president announced that Cuba was being removed from its State department’s list of countries that sponsor terrorism.  One of the “benefits” that any country gets being on that list is that it is denied support from the United States.
One of the criteria for any country to grace this American terrorist list is that it must be deemed by the American government to be an active supporter of “terrorist acts”.  However, if this is a requirement, then one cannot help but wonder why is it that the United States itself isn’t on that list.
From as far back as one can remember, the United States has been doing all it can to have its way, using what many would call terroristic methods.  From the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion attempt on Cuba, when, what the Cubans called “bandits” and “riff raffs” were armed, to fight Castro, to the arming of what the Russians called terrorists in Afghanistan during the 1980s, to the support it gave to Chile’s Augusto Pinochet’s bloody revolution in Chile in 1973. 
Added to all of this, is what many have called America’s “terroristic” efforts today to sabotage Iran and North Korea.  We should also include what Venezuela today is calling America’s efforts to destroy the country.  America’s involvement in what many would call global terrorism is very long indeed.
Of course, other powers have been doing the same thing for as long as we can remember, and what might be viewed as “terrorism” to some, may be viewed as “liberation war” to others.  Remember, one man’s terrorist is always another man’s hero.  So maybe the reason why America hasn’t seen the need to include itself on its own list of state sponsors of international terrorism is because it views its own acts as “liberation” efforts”.
Needless to say, not many countries see much credibility to this “terrorism” list.  While it has some force, in that America uses it as a guide to deny aid to those countries which are unfortunate enough to be on it, very few countries would agree that America, perhaps of all others, really has any moral authority to be condemning others for “terrorist” acts.
MICHAEL A. DINGWALL