>By definition, terrorists try to create terror by "destructive" means of >disrupting the normal functioning of govenment administration and civil and >business activities of the general public, and by killing innocent civilians >if necessary in the process. Terrorists always work in secret from the >underground.
*** You maybe right in some ways here Rajen. But in other ways not so. First let me present here what the Websters Dictionary has to say: Terrorism: The policy of using acts inspiring terror as a method of ruling or of conducting political opposition. Terrorist: A person who favors or practices terrorism. Terror: Great fear. A person or thing that causes great fear.Etc.---. If we go by these definitions, would it NOT be fair to call the Indian govt. TERRORISTIc in its actions against Kashmiris, Nagas, Manipuris, Mizos, the Assamese where thousands upon thousands of civillians have been killed over decades? And won't the US operations in Afghanistan against Al Qida and the Taliban as relates to the deaths of thousands of Afghan civillians, including women and children, not qualify as terroristic? *** One might counter that the INTENT to terrorize has not been there. But can we make that argument with a staright face when ULFA kin were being methodically murdered with state collusion? Or gunnig down of Naga civillians by Indian security forces, merely because they were Nagas and the security forces could not differentiate who was a rebel and who was not? Did you all see the report posted by Jayanta Payeng yesterday about the Manipuri woman fasting for 22 months, and the reason for her action? I don't attempt to discount what some of what these insurgents did either--like the Lakhipathar murders, or Bodo rebels blowing up trains and bridges, or Nagas opening fire on civillians. *** What I am saying is that, thse are NOT a black and white issues. To attempt to portray them as such, is simple mindedness at best, and steeped in a self serving agenda at worst. c At 11:31 PM -0500 9/22/02, Rajen Barua wrote: >By definition, terrorists try to create terror by "destructive" means of >disrupting the normal functioning of govenment administration and civil and >business activities of the general public, and by killing innocent civilians >if necessary in the process. Terrorists always work in secret from the >underground. > >Normally one become a terrorist under the following circumstances: >1) He has completely lost faith in the system. >2) He is very much frustrated at the system. >3) He is very much angry at the system. >4) He is under the impression, right or wrong, that injustice has been done >to his 'people' of whom he thinks himself to be 'self styled' leader or >savior to be. >5) He considers the public to be hostage of the situation, and him as the >savior to be. >6) He does not want to work hard and make a normal living, but is ambitious >enough to seek political gain for himself and his 'people'. >7) He is not poor, but has the means to buy the weopons of destruction to >terrorise the public as necessary. >8) He never care to debate an issue in public and get the public opinion. >Rather he believes what he believes, has great conviction and considers >everybody who donot believe to be his enemy. >9) Some terrorists are so convinced in their destructive mission that they >donot care to kill themselves in the process. >etc etc > >Rajen Barua > >>From: D Deka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: Alpana Sarangapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chan Mahanta >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: Detour From Dream >>Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:44:00 -0700 (PDT) >> >> >>It appears some people would liberally use the word "terrorist" to talk >>about a "non-conformist". Gandhi, Abe Lincoln, George Washington definitely >>were non-conformists but were they terrorists? I see an attempt in the >>previous notes by my friend Mahanta to glorify "terrorism". We cannot be >>fooled. >>Dilip Deka >> 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. 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" >>To: ; >>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. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>--------------------------------- >>Do you Yahoo!? >>New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
