![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/Marie-Colvin.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn the US-and-allied nations, the standard way of interpreting wars and international relations is archetypally exemplified by the internationally respected award-winning American war-journalist Marie Colvin<\/a><\/span><\/strong>, of the London Sunday Times<\/em>. Her career was stellar, if not absolutely unmatched: she won the \u201cJournalist of the Year\u201d award from the Foreign Press Association, plus five other international journalism prizes, for herself and her publisher. This \u201cconsummate war reporter<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a> had started out<\/a> <\/strong><\/span>from a military family, and then Yale, and then UPI, and then interviewed Muammar Gaddafi in 1985 and subsequently, and was clearly on her way up to the top of her profession. But the first really big event in her career was the event that caused her to live the rest of her life with a black eyepatch over her blinded left eye.<\/span><\/p>\n It all started in that same year of 1985, but not in Libya. She was also covering in that year the separatist war by the Tamil Tigers, to break off, from Sri Lanka (Ceylon), the far-northern and far-eastern sections of that country, so as to create an independent nation, which would be controlled by Tamils, and no longer be merely a region within the nation of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is not Tamil-majority, but is instead overwhelmingly Sinhalese population. Marie Colvin was embedded there, along with the anti-Government fighting forces, Tamil separatists, anti-Sinhalese fighters who were at war against Sri Lanka\u2019s Government. This was a Tamil-versus-Sinhal war, and she was reporting it, from the standpoint of the separatist-Tamil rebels.<\/span><\/p>\n Her much-celebrated career ended 27 year later, with her own death, on 22 February 2012, in Homs Syria, while she was embedded with anti-Government forces there, who were trying to overthrow Syria\u2019s Government, instead of trying to overthrow Sri Lanka\u2019s or Libya\u2019s Government.<\/span><\/p>\n In all three of those instances \u2014 from the very start, to the very the end, of her illustrious career \u2014 she was embedded along with, and her articles were in support of, anti-Government forces that the UK-US aristocracy supported, in order to break up countries that this aristocracy were hoping to \u2018free\u2019, so as to take control over them, away from the existing independent Governments there. This was her constantly recurring pattern, from her start, to her widely lionized end, as being a promoter of US-UK international empire: journalism that embraces and unquestioningly accepts and endorses imperialism, while never indicating to its audience that it has any connection whatsoever to imperialism.<\/span><\/p>\n In between her Sri Lankan start and her Syrian end, she prominently reported several times from Libya, likewise from the standpoint of opponents of that independent nation\u2019s Government. Libya had previously been a vassal state of Turkey (Ottoman Empire), then of Italy (Italian Empire), then was an \u2018independent\u2019 nation within the UK-US Empire. And, then, finally \u2014 as a result of Libya\u2019s Revolution, which was led by Gaddafi in 1969 \u2014 Libya actually did win its independence. Gaddafi became killed in 2011, from forces that had been unleashed by the US-UK Empire and France. That successful assassination happened on 20 October 2011, and America\u2019s Secretary of State promptly and publicly exulted about it, by bragging \u201cWe came, we saw, he died \u2014 ha ha ha!<\/strong><\/span>.\u201d<\/a>(The Democratic National Committee and its duped voters rewarded her with their Presidential nomination five years later in 2016 because she was \u2018the most experienced candidate\u2019, having had lots of such disastrous \u2018experiences\u2019, which the duped voters were misled to think to have been an asset, instead of a liability.) Thus, \u2018democracy\u2019 was finally being brought to Libyans, by that country\u2019s former foreign imperial masters, plus their agents, Al Qaeda and other local proxy-forces against Gaddafi.<\/span><\/p>\n What all of Colvin\u2019s reporting exemplified was \u2018journalism\u2019 by a \u2018reporter\u2019 who is embedded along with the fighting forces that were being propagandized for by her own nation\u2019s aristocracy \u2014 and, though she was American, she was in the employ of American vassals, UK aristocrats. This US-UK aristocracy wanted those countries to become either broken up, or else taken over by themselves entirely; and she was a \u2018journalistic\u2019 agent for that, though she was unaware of the fact, and was actually proud of her work, because of her obliviousness to the broader and deeper reality around her.<\/span><\/p>\n Here are some crucial details of her career-highlights, in this regard:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2014<\/span><\/p>\n The Tamil Tigers<\/a><\/strong><\/span> constituted the fighting force of Sri Lanka\u2019s 18% minority of the Sri Lankan population who were 74%-majority Sinhals<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. Ceylon\u2019s (Sri Lanka\u2019s) Sinhal population had been ruled by the British Empire through that 18% minority of Tamils as UK\u2019s local agents, until Sri Lanka (Ceylon) was finally released from British bondage, and won independence in 1946, when the British Empire was breaking up.<\/span><\/p>\n A key Sri Lankan law that passed in 1956, the Sinhala Only Act<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, made Sinhalese language replace the British-imposed English language as Sri Lanka\u2019s official language. Though the Tamil language had never been Sri Lanka\u2019s official language, many Tamils, who had been accustomed to ruling the land for their British masters, were infuriated that the \u2018inferior\u2019 Sinhal people now ruled the land. One of those Sinhals was their own leading aristocrat, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, the progressive<\/strong><\/span><\/a> who became elected Prime Minister in 1956 and won passage of the Sinhala Only Act and of other laws to actually end British control, but he was assassinated in 1959 by a Buddhist monk<\/a><\/strong><\/span> because Bandaranaike had just then signed an agreement with the leader of the main Tamil party<\/strong><\/span><\/a> to bring some degree of local autonomy to the Tamil minority, who were concentrated in the far north and far east<\/strong><\/span><\/a>. Bandaranaike\u2019s wife, Sirimavo Bandaranaike<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, was then elected as Prime Minister in 1960, and she not only tried to increase political participation by Buddhists, but she firmly established democratic socialism (or progressivism) as the Government\u2019s policy. But then, the Marxist (dictatorial<\/em> socialist) Lanka Sama Samaja Party eroded popular support for her government, which became resoundingly defeated in the general election of 1965. Sirimovo became re-elected back into power in 1970. However, her Government\u2019s support of Buddhism and of the Sinhalese language alienated the country\u2019s large Tamil minority, 80% of whom are Hindu (the others: 13% Muslim, 2% Christian, 2% Sikh, and only .8% Buddhist). By contrast, 93% of Sinhals are Buddhist. According to the US Library of Congress in 1988, \u201c93 percent of the Sinhala speakers were Buddhists, and 99.5 percent of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka spoke Sinhala<\/strong><\/span>.\u201d<\/a> (By contrast, the entirety of Sri Lanka is<\/a><\/strong><\/span> 70% Buddhist, 13% Hindu, 10% Muslim, and 7% Christian \u2014 very different from the Tamils.) So: Sri Lanka\u2019s political split was along religious lines \u2014 mainly Tamil Hindus versus Sinhal Buddhists \u2014 in addition to being along tribal lines; and the Tamils represented, in both respects, supporters of the Hindu caste-system, and of the former British aristocracy, which are America\u2019s vassals, against the Sri Lankan public.<\/span><\/p>\n In 1976, the militant separatist Tamil Tigers were born, basically as a reaction against the 1946 freeing of that country from its former colonial British masters.<\/span><\/p>\n Starting in 1985<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, the Tamil Tigers \u201cforcibly occupied more than 35,000 acres of Muslim residential, agricultural and cattle farming land. The government did nothing to help Muslims regain their properties based on title deeds, government permits or the paddy cultivation register. During the ethnic conflict in 1983, 1985, and 1990, more than 12,700 Muslim families were chased out by\u201d the Tiger forces. Wikipedia\u2019s article \u201cExpulsion of Muslims from the Northern province by LTTE<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a> calls the October 1990 portion of that sequence an \u201cethnic cleansing,\u201d of Muslims, from the north Sri Lankan, Tiger-controlled<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, city of Chavakachcheri.<\/span><\/p>\n Colvin\u2019s \u2018news\u2019-\u2018reports\u2019 were strongly pro-Tamil, anti-Sinhal, but she seems to have known nothing about the country from which she was reporting (at war), and to have cared even less about it. (She even said<\/strong><\/span><\/a> [12:00-] \u201cThe history, and the ability to put into context anything in a war \u2026 It didn\u2019t mean anything,\u201d because \u201cit never happens the way you think it\u2019s going to.\u201d She exhibited no interest whatsoever in understanding the background of a war. To her, for example, the war in Chechnya was simply bombings by Russia, \u201can indiscriminate bombing of Chechen villages,\u201d and she had no curiosity as to why whatever was occurring was actually happening.) Instead, she was obsessed by, and focused only<\/em> on, the immense suffering that civilians on the US-UK-backed side experienced. Of course, the owner of her newspaper, Rupert Murdoch<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, probably knew the historical background in this former British colony of Sri Lanka, but her employers never told her about that, and she apparently never asked them about it. They simply couldn\u2019t find any other journalist who was stupid enough to do their bidding in their bosses\u2019 former Empire and who was willing, indeed eager, to accept the pay that they offered to do it. This well-intentioned, but willingly ignorant, employee lost an eye \u2014 and was nearly killed \u2014 because of her being embedded there, with what were actually (though she never knew it) UK proxy-forces. She thought that she was helping \u2018the good guys\u2019 (Tamils) in a war against \u2018the bad guys\u2019 (the Government). She was the archetypal star-\u2018journalist\u2019, having faith in \u2018our\u2019 side. She is beloved<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, by her \u2018journalistic\u2019 colleagues, as if she hadn\u2019t been merely the empire\u2019s most effective war-propagandist.<\/span><\/p>\n \u2014<\/span><\/p>\n In 2011, in Libya, she was accepted again into Gaddafi\u2019s tent for an interview, even though she despised him as one of the \u2018bad\u2019 guys. (This doesn\u2019t mean \u201cbad\u201d as Hillary Clinton was bad, but instead \u2018bad\u2019 as one of the Clinton-Biden-Obama regime\u2019s many victims who all<\/em> were \u2018bad\u2019, in her view. And, of course, the US-UK aristocracy are all \u2018good\u2019, in that view: the imperialists<\/em>\u2019 view.)<\/span><\/p>\n In 2012, in Syria, at the conflict in Homs, she was telecasting to CNN, and other TV networks, regarding how evil Bashar al-Assad was for bombing the enclaves there that, in fact, were cooperating with Al Qaeda (though Colvin didn\u2019t report that they were such). It was on 22 February 2012, and Britain\u2019s Telegraph<\/em>\u00a0 bannered \u201cMarie Colvin: Britain summons Syria ambassador over killing<\/strong><\/span>.\u201d<\/a> This newspaper reported: \u201cIn her broadcasts on Tuesday night, Colvin had accused the Syrian Army of perpetrating the \u2018complete and utter lie that they are only targeting terrorists.\u2019 Describing what was happening as \u2018absolutely sickening\u2019, Colvin said: \u2018The Syrian army is simply shelling a city of cold, starving civilians.\u2019\u201d When the US and UK had done more-widespread, entire-city, bombings in World War II, it was fine, in this view; but, now, when Syria\u2019s Government were doing more-targeted versions of that, in order to prevent a takeover of Syria by the US, and a subsequent hand-over of Syria to the Sauds, it wasn\u2019t okay. And, of course, the Western \u2018press\u2019-corps, of US-UK invasion-propagandists, place Colvin upon a pedestal, as having constituted the \u2018ideal\u2019 \u2018 war journalist\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s one way of interpreting wars and international relations \u2014 the way that Colvin memorialized.<\/span><\/p>\n An excellent docudrama movie about Marie Colvin\u2019s reporting from Sri Lanka in 1985, and Libya in 2011, and Syria in 2012, is the November 2018 \u201cA Private War<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a>. It provides an honest portrayal of her. (Some incompetent critics downgraded the movie<\/strong><\/span><\/a> because of what actually were deficiencies \u2014 basically Colvin\u2019s stupidity and shallowness \u2014 in the real person herself. Other incompetent critics, such as at the neoconservative Washington Post<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/a>, praised it largely because they shared Colvin\u2019s neoconservatism. It\u2019s just an honest, and very skillfully done, biopic.) On the basis of its strictly cinematic values, I consider it a superb film.<\/span><\/p>\n \u2014\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n The opposite way \u2014 the anti<\/em>-imperialist viewpoint \u2014 of reporting about war and international relations, has been embodied, to cite two prime authentic<\/em> journalists \u2014 NOT propagandists (such as Colvin was) \u2014 by Vanessa Beeley, and also by Eva Bartlett. Both of these authentically great reporters have also covered the war in Syria. Here, from them, is this opposite<\/em> way of interpreting war and international relations:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2014\u2014<\/span><\/p>\n