It is a de facto standard that the strong will torment the weak on the pure intention of profiting from it somehow. As an example, the USA does not care a bit about free speech when it goes out of its borders.
"Democracy to the world" is also a pathetic disguise for puppet regimes. Iraq is a puppet regime. Cuba used to be a puppet regime and the leader (Batista) was brutal which caused the actual revolution.
What you mentioned deals with the way language tends to shift in nature and often cause much damage when terms meant to give positive feelings are applied to negative scenarios in order to justify what's done.
Consider
Nat Turner.
If studying African-American History, one will quiclly recall many of the Slave Revolts that often happened—-with
ones like the Nat Turner slave rebellon being amongst the most famous since he was trying to get freedom at all costs…and led a revolt in Virginia on August 21, 1831 that resulted in 56 deaths among their victims, the largest number of white fatalities to occur in one uprising in the antebellum southern United States.
Some would say that he was a “terrorist”—and yet, one can understand how he arrived at that point after seeing attrocities like the raping of their families, kidnapping, ruthless whippings and many other evils. We can condemn the man in hindsight—but if in the times, whose side would you be on? Though the slave masters were angry at the loss of life on their side, was it not something they already had a hand in because they already oppressed one group—-and ironically, felt they were the “freedom fighters” because of how they as “Americans” (whites) fought for their independence from Britain?
Take it further..Were the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution “acts of terrorism”? Who is the terrorists and who is the fighter for liberty? As it stands, its interesting to see what happens when one groups fights an invading party after being terrorized….and then are labeled as “terrorists” by those invading.
I've always found it odd that many demonized people like Nat Turner for his actions, saying how much of an "injustice" it was---and yet, to do the same to a slave...or to do the same to an American Indian, as was done systematically/repeatedly for centuries, was seen as a "heroic" act to the people who approved of it. One of the reasons why (as mentioned earlier) Fredrick Douglass wrote as he did in "
What's the 4th of July to a Slave?" speech in showing the utter hypocrisy of the U.S (more
here and
here and
here ).
To spread from "Sea to Shining Sea" (as Manifest Destiny goes) was a mindset that justified the destruction of so many people when it came to colonial expansion...while groups responding in kind were always deemed as "villians" and the people attacked as "innocents"--with those who were initially aggressors being deemed as "heroes" for seeking to address that.
To expand on the dynamic further, I
f studying U.S History, those in the American revolution are considered “freedom fighters” because of how they as “Americans” fought for their independence from Britain. However, if the British called those in the U.S “Insurgents”, the term would not be accepted gladly. Taking it further, if the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution were called “acts of terrorism” due to guerilla warfare tatics against the British, would it be deemed as “truthful conversation?” For similar situations today, consider Iraq or other places were an occupation occurred and those fighting back were called “terrorists”/ “rebels” and insurgents even though they used the same term on the Occupiers.
Who is the terrorists and who is the fighter for liberty? It’s interesting witnessing what happens when one groups fights an invading party after being terrorized….and then are labeled as “terrorists” by those invading…or “insurgents.”
In our times today, w
ords and phrases euphemistically used by American and British mass media to refer to military operations not only sugar-coat harsh events, but also premeditatedly modify the addressee's correct perception of reality, so that what actually happens is no longer reflected in language. Thus, language becomes deceitful—but good enough for both sides to consider satisfactory.
Something else to consider is principles governing military euphemistic use. Many times, the intention is to minimise the effect that strong words might have on the reader/hearer. It is because of this that military discourse never uses words like "guilt," "murder," "assassination," "retreat," "spy," "torture," "lie," "siege," "mistake," or "invasion," for fear these lexemes might raise awareness of what really happens in the conflict area. The goal is to ensure that the "innocent" public can remain innocent, with sensitivities intact, never knowing the truth even as they may say they would like to have it.
In so doing, language is no longer informational, it becomes a propaganda tool, meant to hide too harsh a reality. By using euphemisms, the military discourse avoids enraging, or outraging the public, unless this is really meant, and makes world conflicts and military activities more agreeable. In the case of military euphemisms, the most important part is played by the media, whose means of manipulation include the use of such terms in order to conceal the truth.
For other examples. consider the terms often used whenever you see things discussed:
—Insurgents (local groups native to the area resisting occupation)
— permissive environment (unchallenging territory from the military point of view)
— border protection (deploying the Navy to intercept boats loaded with desperate Afghans and Iraqis)
— caught in the cross-fire (women and children shot dead by soldiers)
— ethnic cleansing (extermination, genocide)
— administrative detention (imprisonment without charge or trial)
— generous offer (demand for surrender)
— incursion (attacking with tanks and planes)
—air campaign (aircraft bombing)
— civilian casualties (innocent people death),
—Friendly fire (death inadvertently caused to one's own troops) and many others.
For many readers/hearers, these words are not loaded unless given in a context pertaining to the conflict situation in hostile areas such as the Middle East, the Persian Gulf or other places
All this is mentioned in order to emphasize the point that just as terms can be a bit misleading, so the term "hero" can also be put out of place....as well as "innocents." 
