DC - Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? - Page 2

Originally posted by: mkzara

As heart girl u said that terrorism is politically motivated. I agree with that but a terrorist act is a terrorist act is a terrorist act. A terrorist is not someone who fights for a cause but someone who will hurt someone for a cause. A terrorist is not someone who is fighting to gain something for people or for himself but a terrorist is someone who doesnt care about others and is willing to kill someone innocent for their cause.

[/quote]

Terrorists don kill ppl for thier cause. look at 9/11 what did they those terrorists get out of it? they died.. If we go deep into it .. we ll c that those palestinians(i think they were called palestinians) were celebrating after 9/11. tell me wat those ppl be called by palestinians.. they ll call those terrorists as ppl who gave their lives for thier country..

Originally posted by: jasunap

so by and large a terrorist usually has vested interests and is usually in search of personal glory. terrorism is an act that should be condemned most emphatically cos all it manages, is to breed fear and subservience. a terrorist in one country will remain a terrorist in any country. the land does not make a difference. he that is named a martyr after being deemed a terrorist is usually one who rallies people to fight for their freedom/independance etc. he rallies people through the power of speech and not by pointing a gun. [/quote]

So u mean they were actually terrorrists and they were termed as martyr even though they dint deserve to? i dont agree. even then u ll say that Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi and all others were terrorrists and not martyrs.

i completely agree with jasunap and mkzara

killing people for the sake of "pleasure" or "personal gain" is terrorism. Soldiers are not considered terrorists by anyone and they cannot be considered terrorists. Jusb because they are fighting strangers and will kill them does not mean they are terrorists for anyone. when 2 equipped sides fight...both are equal. they are there to fight each other and both sides are equally "right" or "wrong" based on their viewpoint....so neither is a terrorist.

heartgirl...you are trying to say that soldiers are terrorists 4 the other side but they defin8ly r not....wen 2 countries r @ war...v all noe tht ppl frm both ends will die and tht both ends r fighting so neither side has the right 2 call the other side a terrorist a criminal...the ppl hu die during war r martyrs..and the ppl hu kill thm r not murderers or terrorists...they r soldiers!

terrorists dont care abt the country or themselves or nething....they r a bunch of radical ppl hu have nuttin better 2 do thn kill ppl and they try 2 justify it as being "freedom fighters" and benefiting their country but we all know it isnt....with media support these ppl are successful in convincing many people (like heartgil and others) that they are actually "freedom fighters" infact they r nuttin but terrorists...they can go newhere they want and they will alwaiiz b terrorists

Originally posted by: heart girl

December,2001 The Indian Parliamnet was attacked by 5 men and a 45 minute shooting followed. All news headines screamed 'Terrorist Attack'. - Fair Enough.

Two months back a scientist was killed at IISC Bangalore immediately captioned as a terrorist attack - Fair enough.

8th April 1929 , Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt throw a bomb in the Central Legislative Assembly. Terrorist Attack? No?

In defence of of our mighty martyrs , their aim was not to cause any loss of life, but to use the daring action to awaken and energize the Indian masses. The revolutionary movement was not entirely devoid of bloodshed. But dont we till date , glorify this struggle.

Originally posted by: mkzara

When people fight with honor they r not terrorist when people fight with emotions they r not terrorists but when they fight to hurt people or just to win they r terrorists. War doesn't change the rules about not hurting someone who is innocent and people who dont follow these rules r terrorists. People who r willing to hurt someone without a fault for a cause r terrorists. .

So is the Struggle between Islral and Palestine a struggle or a war or terroism? Who determines whose motives are honourable?
Any struggle or rebellion is motivated politically, socially or religiously. Killing is not a cult passtime of all activist groups. Does that mean I am denying the existence of terrorism and certifying all heinous crimes against manind. NO.
"In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the "Goals and Objectives of Jihad":
Establishing the rule of God on earth
Attaining martyrdom in the cause of God
Purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity"
- Exploding airplanes in civilan area is terrorism. Groups like LTTE will however have their side of the story, their staunch set of followers and a mission. We cannot justify their means to the end but we cannot write it off as a thirst for blood shed.

 

I feel our friends arguing against the motion are misguided by their firm belief  that terrorist acts and mass killing is done with an aim to satiate some personal perverse need or thirst for glory. If you take a look at every terrorist orgaganizations homepage (yeah.. who doesnt have one these days) 😃each has a mission statement.

Originally posted by: jasunap

so by and large a terrorist usually has vested interests and is usually in search of personal glory. terrorism is an act that should be condemned most emphatically cos all it manages, is to breed fear and subservience. a terrorist in one country will remain a terrorist in any country. the land does not make a difference. he that is named a martyr after being deemed a terrorist is usually one who rallies people to fight for their freedom/independance etc. he rallies people through the power of speech and not by pointing a gun.

Let us try to apply the same rationale to Ku Klux Klan. Were they the terroristsof the Civil war? They did not hold public rallies and incite people with speeches. They were an extremist group which wanted revenge. But branding them is just a matter of perpective

Originally posted by: mist

 

I feel our friends arguing against the motion are misguided by their firm belief  that terrorist acts and mass killing is done with an aim to satiate some personal perverse need or thirst for glory. If you take a look at every terrorist orgaganizations homepage (yeah.. who doesnt have one these days) 😃each has a mission statement.

Let us try to apply the same rationale to Ku Klux Klan. Were they the terroristsof the Civil war? They did not hold public rallies and incite people with speeches. They were an extremist group which wanted revenge. But branding them is just a matter of perpective

I wish to place a strong emphasis on the differences between such a group as the first Klan of the 1860-70's, and that of the second Klan of the 1900's to present. The agenda of both the clans is radically different, the urgency and necessity is absent in the later clan, and their justification for the actions is weak. I make no claim to defend the modern Klan at all, but I feel that much of what was happening during Reconstruction more than justifies such militia style groups and activities that came about during the time. Obviously not every action can be deemed acceptable, but the overall purpose and results of the group, in my opinion, can be seen as necessary.

The original Klan, as a single united group, existed from shortly after the war, till it was officially ended in 1877. While today's modern Klan groups are fighting for a goal that is a far cry from what the original Klan fought for, I believe if you have a better understanding of exactly what was going on during Reconstruction, that just about any race of man today, if put in their shoes, would have joined such a group. They had a purpose, and they came out to fight for it. Once their job was done, they closed shop. The Klan today have no such purpose as they did (at least not one that is so obviously abusive), and their actions today have different intents and outcomes.

The original Klan developed a system that allowed them to monitor the secret meetings and rallies that the carpet baggers and Union League soldiers were holding with the ex-slaves. The Klan would rally their men, in costume, and ride through, breaking up these meetings that sought to teach and incite rebellion and destruction. They, in a sense, became a form of the law, since rarely was a crime against a white punished under this new regime. When men of any color were caught destroying, raping, or any other crime, they were dealt with by the group. It was not as if the Klan simply rode around town looking for any and every black man to lynch or kill, it was seeking the rebellious, destructive ones, and restoring order to the lawlessness whenever possible.

The Ku Klux were opposed to the shedding of human blood, and violence was never used except as a last resort. Repeated warnings were given to offenders, and it was only when they were not heeded that the Ku Klux resorted to extreme measures.

The methods of the Ku Klux Klan were generally peaceful and without destruction of life and property, and when its objects had been accomplished there was no more persecution, nor pillaging, nor hounding of any one — and when tranquility was restored to the land, the Ku Klux folded their tents like the Arabs, and as silently stole away. (Quoted from "History of the Ku Klux Klan" by Mrs. Rose in "Truths of History" 91)

Edited by jasunap - 18 years ago

and also the present dau ku klux klan is deemed as a terrorist and racist organisation. the Klan's enemies today read like a grocery list of conspiratorial bogeymen and scapegoats for economic failure. These include Jews, who secretly operate the New World Order; African Americans, who survive on welfare; gays, who never work yet seem to have too much money; abortion providers, who profit from the murder (?) of white children; and a corrupt government that does not recognize the rights of white citizens. Every group on the Klan's list serves as a scapegoat for individual Klansmen to explain and excuse their inability to succeed and advance in modern society. This need for justification runs deep in the disaffected and is unlikely to disappear, regardless of how low the Klan's fortunes eventually sink

"Attired in robes or sheets and wearing masks topped with pointed hoods, the Klansmen terrorized public officials in efforts to drive them from office and blacks in general to prevent them from voting, holding office, and otherwise exercising their newly acquired political rights. When such tactics failed to produce the desired effect, their victims might be flogged, mutilated, or murdered. These activities were justified by the Klan as necessary measures in defense of white supremacy and the inviolability of white womanhood.
" Ref from http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562317/Ku_Klux_Klan.h tml
Jasunap, I was indeed refertting to the activities of the Klan during the 1860s;the modern age activities are immaterial. Weren't they champions of one side and terrorists of the other?
The example was in favour of the argument that 'terrorist' activity is not always a mindless and blind pursuit of violence. Edited by mist - 18 years ago

okay mist all told they were not seeking revenge against the northerners! and that could lead to another debate 😃 . tell me in which country are such people called martyrs? if they have been flogging mutiliating or murdering their victims, which country or who calls them martyrs? that is what the debate is about. a terrorist of one country called the martyr in another one! you say the same thing that we are saying. once a terrorist always a terrortist! the klan was either doing this for revenge (a personal grudge against bootleggers bandits carpetbaggers etc) or fighting the rebellious blacks (then it was a racist case and also vested interest in wanting blacks to remain subserviant. where does that qualify them as being the champions on one side? and by who? more than half of america deems them as a racist organisation and others count them as a terrorist outfit! and they are looked upon by the rest of the world in the same way too!