Chandan, I came up with my own definition without consulting any dictionary. I am surprised to see that the dictionary definition of the word 'terrorism' is so poor. No comments. Rajen
>From: Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Rajen Barua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Detour From Dream >Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:06:01 -0500 > > >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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
