At 5:33 PM -0500 9/22/02, Alpana Sarangapani wrote: >> *** "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.
*** Thanks for reminding me Alpana. It is indeed helpful. But you seem to have missed the context of my comment altogether. And THAT is exactly what I have been pointing to. A terrorist, by definition, is one who creates terror. Terror can come in many forms. The British colonialists were indeed terrified by the immense power that Gandhi wielded, in his quest to get the British out of India. In that CONTEXT Gandhi could have been called a terrorist, BY the British colonial powers. Menachem Begin WAS actually branded a terrorist by the British. But he is a HERO to Israelis. Again CONTEXT. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist not only to the Afrikaaner apartheidists, but also to our very own VP, then Congressman Dick Cheney, who opposed Mandela's release from prison. But Mandela recd., the Nobel peace prize, and is considered a hero by much of the world. CONTEXT! >Gandhi gave up everything, not just his family but also all material >possessions, could you say that for any of the present day terrorists? *** You ask very easy questions A. We know that Osama Bin Laden lives/d a spartan life of a very ordinary man in the caves of Afghanistan. Is he therefore the same as Mahatma Gandhi? >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 ?- *** That is YOUR perception Alpana. Again I remind you of Nelson Mandela. >- is it like one group against another and each one is a >"terrorist" in the other group's eyes? *** It most CERTAINLY is so. And often the lines between right and wrong get blurred. Menachim Begin believed he was on the right path. The British did not. Who in your mind was the GOOD guy, and who was the bad one in this context? Will you have the same degree of courage that you display about branding certain people terrorists in the Assam context, to JUDGE and BRAND either the British or the Israeli freedom fighters led by Menachem Begin? *** The point I am attempting to make is that we have to be very careful about our own sense of righteousness, lest it gets self-serving. >I hope with your never-ending quest for 'fairness' - you are able to see the >differences between the good guys and the bad. *** I admit my own failures--in asserting my self righteousness. >However much one may try, the >vast majority of people know a terrorist when they see one - *** I am willing to go along with you if you could tell me who were the good guys and who were the bad, in South Africa and in Israel. >---- its futile >defending these derelicts of society. *** Name calling might be able to soothe our troubled souls, but does not prove anything :-). Take care. c-da 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>
