Who is a peaceful demonstrator, innocent civilian?
Mar 14, 2011
EDITOR: I have been following the developments in the northern African region especially Libya. I have, however, noted what I consider a calculated misuse of words by some of the correspondents in the international press.
EDITOR: I have been following the developments in the northern African region especially Libya. I have, however, noted what I consider a calculated misuse of words by some of the correspondents in the international press.
Innocent civilians: In my understanding, these should be people who are either demonstrating peacefully or not demonstrating at all, but end up being caught in between the violent demonstrators and those trying to quell the demonstrations.
But civilians can no longer be called ‘innocent civilians’ when they start burning buildings, damaging property, or fight the police.
Peaceful demonstrations: I have noted the conspicuous lack of mention of words ‘armed rebel/protestors’ when referring to anti-government rebels in Libya who are carrying RPGs, machine guns and using tanks, actively engaged in firing at government held positions. Surely, are these still peaceful demonstrators/demonstrations or armed rebellion or civil war?
Armed government forces who fire at innocent civilians: Very ironical indeed, because when the armed rebels fire at government positions or government held towns, how sure are we that these towns are devoid of any civilians?
Why must the term ‘firing at innocent civilians’ only apply to government forces and not to rebel forces? Do bullets fired from a machine gun held by a rebel make choice between soldiers and civilians, especially given the lack of training by the rebel forces?
My submission should not be seen in any way as a support to killing of innocent civilians.
Those individuals who engage in acts of human rights abuse should be condemned and brought to book. But reporting or use of words should be objective.
In my opinion, a demonstration stops being peaceful the moment it turns violent. It stops being peaceful the moment demonstrators start destroying property, burning buildings, throwing stones, hurling sectarian insults.
How does the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces come into the picture of resolving conflicts in Africa?
How comes the African Union has been left out of the picture by those looking for peace in Libya, including the United Nations? I have even heard of similar terms being used in Uganda.
In the recent past, people have been attacked and killed by demonstrators, buildings have been burnt in Kampala, property looted or destroyed during protests, but some people still use the term 'peaceful demonstrations'.
John Kaka,
Kampala
Innocent civilians: In my understanding, these should be people who are either demonstrating peacefully or not demonstrating at all, but end up being caught in between the violent demonstrators and those trying to quell the demonstrations.
But civilians can no longer be called ‘innocent civilians’ when they start burning buildings, damaging property, or fight the police.
Peaceful demonstrations: I have noted the conspicuous lack of mention of words ‘armed rebel/protestors’ when referring to anti-government rebels in Libya who are carrying RPGs, machine guns and using tanks, actively engaged in firing at government held positions. Surely, are these still peaceful demonstrators/demonstrations or armed rebellion or civil war?
Armed government forces who fire at innocent civilians: Very ironical indeed, because when the armed rebels fire at government positions or government held towns, how sure are we that these towns are devoid of any civilians?
Why must the term ‘firing at innocent civilians’ only apply to government forces and not to rebel forces? Do bullets fired from a machine gun held by a rebel make choice between soldiers and civilians, especially given the lack of training by the rebel forces?
My submission should not be seen in any way as a support to killing of innocent civilians.
Those individuals who engage in acts of human rights abuse should be condemned and brought to book. But reporting or use of words should be objective.
In my opinion, a demonstration stops being peaceful the moment it turns violent. It stops being peaceful the moment demonstrators start destroying property, burning buildings, throwing stones, hurling sectarian insults.
How does the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces come into the picture of resolving conflicts in Africa?
How comes the African Union has been left out of the picture by those looking for peace in Libya, including the United Nations? I have even heard of similar terms being used in Uganda.
In the recent past, people have been attacked and killed by demonstrators, buildings have been burnt in Kampala, property looted or destroyed during protests, but some people still use the term 'peaceful demonstrations'.
John Kaka,
Kampala