> *** "Terrorism"abd "terrorist" is a grossly misused term. Mahatma Gandhi > too was a terrorist. So was Menachem Begin. Mao Tse Tung no less
C'da: Gandhi was all about non-violence - 'ahimsa'. Even his worst "enemies" knew that - forget his admirers. And how could you even mention Gandhi's name in the same breath with other terrorist scum that we see all around us? Gandhi gave up everything, not just his family but also all material possessions, could you say that for any of the present day terrorists? The main ingredient for a terrorist is to convert and convince other people of their views by using terror and intimidation. > Washington too was one. To the Confederates Abe Lincon must have been one . How, even for argument's sake?..so, anybody that STOPS evil doings like slavery, theft, robbery, rape, etc., etc. could be grouped with the terrorists ?- is it like one group against another and each one is a "terrorist" in the other group's eyes? Is it that simple? Its not a name calling battle, its about what is right and what is wrong - who is doing what - who is terrorizing the common people and taking away the peace of mind of thousands of people and also minting money using terror tactics. I hope with your never-ending quest for 'fairness' - you are able to see the differences between the good guys and the bad. However much one may try, the vast majority of people know a terrorist when they see one - its futile defending these derelicts of society. with regards, --Alpana ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chan Mahanta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:34 PM Subject: Re: Detour From Dream > > Those who romanticize terrorism, should well advise the "ex-citizens" of > >India >to associate the people at large of the State with their > >"ideology", so that a >political platform can be created in order to have > >their "package" implemented. > > > > *** "Terrorism"abd "terrorist" is a grossly misused term. Mahatma Gandhi > too was a terrorist. So was Menachem Begin. Mao Tse Tung no less. George > Washingtom too was one. To the Confederates Abe Lincon must have been one . > Nelson Mandela was one too, to the white supremacist South Africans. > Unless it is DEFINED,with reference to context, it is a catchall term that > carries little meaning. > > > *** I agree that a ploitical platform has to be created. But what IF such a > platform could not be created because it is declared illegal by the powers > that be, rendering all such attempts at a creating a political platform > anti-national at best and "terroristic" at worst? Heads I win, tails you > lose scenario, isn't it? > > > >And if they are not willing to do that, they should be isolated, hounded > >or >whatever it takes to expose their petty self-serving motives. Economic > >>depravation is not a convincing reason enough to pick up an explosive > >device. > > *** What if it is NOt that lack of willingness, but the willingness thwrted > by the powers that be? What should its ramifications be? Should the powers > that be forfeit its rights to rule? If not what should the penalty be? > > > > cm > > > > > > > > > > > At 10:02 PM -0400 9/21/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >In a message dated 9/20/02 10:50:36 PM Central Daylight Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > > ><<*** They are, but so? What are you going to do about those who have? I > > mean other than preach ? And would preaching end the cycle?>> > > > > Those who romanticize terrorism, should well advise the "ex-citizens" of > >India to associate the people at large of the State with their "ideology", > >so that a political platform can be created in order to have their > >"package" implemented. And if they are not willing to do that, they should > >be isolated, hounded or whatever it takes to expose their petty > >self-serving motives. Economic depravation is not a convincing reason > >enough to pick up an explosive device. > > > > > > KJD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
