Quote:
Originally Posted by prague
Oh, the paradoxical quesiton of "terrorist" and "terrorism". How does one define a terrorist? When should a act of violence be considered terrorism? Hmm, the question aren't easily answered; however, just remember: "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
|
Hi there.
A terrorist is a terrorist, the expression "freedom fighter" was created by them for them to justify their COLD BLOODED MURDERS, and if they cared about their people, they would take their fight to the streets protesting, doing petitions, using every diplomatic tool in the book, but not MURDER, saying you are a "freedom fighter" doesn't make it so, any more than if i say i am the king of the world, diplomacy takes years to come through with positive results, while over the last 2000 years terrorism hasn't accomplished a damned thing other than MURDERING and MAIMING inocent people both neutral, friend and foe, VIOLENCE is never a good solution to any problem, all it achieves it to cause more violence and hate.
AND to me terrorist are the lowest most disgusting sub human beeings in the universe, if anybody would deserve to be exterminated it would be them.
Also, when they MURDER all those people they get people to side with their enemys, so terrorism is self-defeatist, the more you "PLAY" the more you lose, you lose your freinds, your family, the people you MURDER, your cause and most importantly you lose yourself to the hate and violence.
GOOD JOB, RETARDS!
There are always alternatives to violence, aspecially terrorist type violence, if you protest and your people get killed, you get public sympathy for your movement instead of losing that person to a suicide bombing and LOSING public sympathy.
There are a lot of ways to get your point across today, terrorism isn't one of them, there are news agencies, like newspapers, tv news, the internet, word of mouth, marches, petissions, business strikes; refusal to work etc. one person can be repremended, 10 also but 100, or 1000, harder to do.
If you are under an oppressive, dictatorship, the only violent action that i and many would find acceptable would be to kill the dictator and his top aides and no more, you "take care" of the problem, and you don't MURDER the inocent victims of his reign of violence along a few of his men that are usually in it to save themselves and to make a living.
JohnDowe.