If You Don't Like Burglars Cameron, Stop Stealing From Other Countries!
David Cameron recently said that the law should be changed so that a home-owner will not have to fear prosecution should they violently defend themselves against an intruder or burglar who trespasses. That is all very well and good and many agree with him, while others may disagree. We can debate the benefits of this amendment but can the words of the British Prime Minister, if he really believes in them, hold any further meanings?
To many, your country is your home. So what would be said of a burglar that stole from your country and stole your country from you? Would David Cameron still think you have the right to defend yourself, so long as you weren't “grossly disproportionate”? Would David Cameron still think that the attacker has given “up their rights”?
The United Kingdom, unfortunately, has a long history of ‘stealing’ other people’s homes, from Canada all the way to Australia and the Pacific. Possibly even more disturbing is the UK’s incessant dealing of stolen goods, ranging from the Crown jewels (Indian) to Palestine (which belongs to the Palestinians, funnily enough). You may think I'm drawing tenuous links here, talking about an Imperial force that no longer rules the waves, but as the saying goes-old habits die hard.
Britain,along with its allies, still traipses along the entire world, occupying different nations and otherwise meddling in the way they run their governments, deciding what they can and can’t have in their arsenals and how they deal with law breakers as well as in many other aspects.
So, Mr Cameron thinks that you are allowed to beat the living daylights out of a burglar if necessary. Would he then also agree that the Iraqi insurgency is in essence a just movement? All the evidence that exists shows that in the early days of the Iraqi invasion (before the sectarian ‘proxy’ mess), the Iraqi’s had a very robust guerrilla resistance movement. Yet I remember distinctly that they were labelled as insurgents and terrorists and other loaded words designed to skew public opinion. Mr. Cameron says that burglars are “cowards”. Really Mr Cameron? I do not remember him or any other conservative piping up and saying that in the House of Commons regarding the illegal invasion of Iraq. Is the prime minister admitting that the Iraqi invasion was a cowardly unjust aggression by the most powerful nations on earth against one of the weakest, based on nothing more than a taxi drivers lie and George Bush Jr.’s thirst to prove himself to his daddy?
And what about Afghanistan? Research shows that the majority of Afghans don’t even know what 9/11 is. They aren’t fighting the coalition forces because they are opposed to all things western and ‘democratic’, as the mainstream media will have you believe. They are fighting coalition forces because they woke up one day to find a bunch of armed westerners that do not look too different from the Soviets and who look a little bit like the guys who came 200 years before. They are planting IED’s to protect their country against a foreign aggressor trying to take their home i.e. defending their homes from intruders. Is David Cameron admitting that the war in Afghanistan is a cowardly war? The war in Afghanistan is a war without objectives and therefore is technically infinite (in terms of duration) and cannot be won? So what are we doing there? Why are our taxes funding that war? 'Al-Qaeda' is an ideology that is now all over the world and can potentially spread, and the Taliban (a government) can not be defeated by any physical measure alone.
Then there is the real kicker. Israel. The U.K. invaded Palestine, got bored and on the way out handed it over to a group of Zionists. Incidentally those Zionists were convicted terrorists in their home countries. If the sick relationship ended there then history would perhaps have forgiven the U.K. for their crime, but we, as a nation, with the support of our prime minister, continue to support and assist Israel in its actions, which cannot be described with words. That cannot be forgiven or forgotten. But Mr. Cameron thinks that you can defend yourself against aggressors; so the small acts of resistance by the Palestinians, which are nothing more than token acts, which the mainstream media always describes as acts of 'terrorism', should then be seen as justified and the likes of Mr Cameron should surely be supporting any such acts.
The links may seem far fetched, but the ideology is the same. Are you or are you not allowed to protect yourself from aggressors? Do the aggressors lose or not lose the rights to protection they would usually have by committing a crime? It seems our domestic and foreign policies simply lack consistency.