No doubt that we all are having problem defining terrorism, even UN is facing similar problems.
People only realize it when the sword comes down on ones own head. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajen Barua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Detour From Dream > > > 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 >
