From: silvio at big.net.au (silvio@....net.au)
Subject: Do Terrorists Really Have More Fun?

On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 03:38:31PM +1000, John wrote:
> sockz loves you wrote:
> 
> >hmm...  how is this known?  has richard or yourself ever met a terrorist?  are you yourself a terrorist?  i question the basis for 
> >the writer's judgement here.
> >  
> >
> 
> Sockz, you are so right here. I find it very hard to fit Nelson Mandela, 
> Steven Beeko, Arial Sharon, Yassur Arafat, George Dubya Jnr or Carlos in 
> the model being put forward by our gobbling friend.
> 
> Actually, George Dubya Jnr probably does fit that model the more I think 
> of it...
> 
> JPF

[ disclaimer.. i'm a hobbiest commentator as all healthy <terrorist [hating]>
  people should be, so excuse the inaccuracies please ]

was the independance of india a continual terrorist act with an attempt to
cause political change - possibly by "inciting" violent reactions from
the prevailing leadership?

in the american cival war.. who were the terrorists?  i'm not an american
history buff though (hell.. i've never even read about it in school).

how many terrorists were arrested pre civil rights movement (modern usage)
in america?  afaik, it was a preconception that one of the many reasons for
segration, was because it was necessary to control the inert mindset of
a black individuals terrorist nature.

being suspected of being a terrorist, doesnt make it so you can be held
in custody without freedom of information and basic human and civil rights.
what is the philosophy of civil rights?  surely, its to deny them
given enough thought police (of the precongnitive kind).  in essence to
protect those who do not know what their own civil rights are.  ie, the
government shall provide protection for those who do not know what
civil rights are and for those who dare not question them.

one must remember that democracy is infact the purist form of pluralism
there is.  an example of this is in Australia where up until the late
70's (or was it the 80's), compulsary voting in australia
was legislated differently for our "natives".  [ Australia is a country which
legislates compulsary voting ].   However, thankfully even though the human
rights laws predate this time, black australians were under a "seperate" law
to determine government representation of the country they live in.  For
them it was optional.

That is not to say voting should or should not be compulsary, but simply
indicative of the various legislation for us/them - and especially how
we define who "they" are.

back to something relating to your post ;-)

in terms of nelson mandela. that guy was in jail for how long? indeed he was a
terrorist.  south africa didn't play cricket in australia for a long
time though because of the entire "black" thing.  i think many
terrorists were arrested during wonderful apartie (sp?) :(

arial sharon?  that guy is not in jail, and has the support of the .us, so
indeed he cannot be a terrorist.  ignore the fact that the un and various
ngo's are a "tad suspicious" of certain events surrounding the
entire palestine/israel conflict.

yassur arafat.  considering that he is "responsible" for the mass suicide
bombers but was under house arrest for some period of time for the same
duration.  his terrorist actions are clear.  likewise, considering that
palestine always causes conflict, and isreal is "forced" to respond, then
certainly this is acceptable.

mind you.. the entire israel/palestine conflict is obviously not a "whitehat"
affair on either end.. its definately grey, but isreal is certainly not
what i'd call a nice "camp".

</rant without point>

--
Silvio

Powered by blists - more mailing lists