<<*** "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.>>
We silly human beings have a propensity to take sides. Of course, for right or wrong causes. But one bit has piqued my curiosity. Nelson Mandela, a dissident, is a recipient of the Nobel prize. Guess for what? Elementary, for PEACE. Gandhi, a terrorist? I do not want to make a mockery of myself by juxtaposing this ugly word with his name. Readers of this forum can draw their own inference. Doesn't dragging unarmed innocent people out of a bus, lining them up and executing them point blank, just to reach their objective constitute terrorism? If there is any other explanation in your book, do tell.
<<*** 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?>>
When both are citizens, terrorists and the law-abiding people, the dividing line between them is the magnitude of infraction. Didn't AGP come to power by creating such a platform? It will be very much possible for these criminal enterprises to do the same, only after the violence they disseminate, is dropped or eliminated.
KJD.
