clarkkent wrote:med142 wrote:Clarkkent.
Does that include Nelson mandela. he was still brandid a terrorist by the US,even though he was given the Noble peace prize.
Irrespective of the narrow stance of the US regarding terrorism; must we also conform to this too? We all should be against violence as a tool for change. Must terrorism be synonymous with violent, forceful intimidation and coercion?
Nelson Mandela, and for that matter Mahatma Gandhi never resorted to violence as a means to change. They fostered 'Ahimsa', non-violence, as a the path to change. Would you equate Mandela or Gandhi with Bin Laden? Terrorism in its narrowest definition, would seem to many to be correct for the coercion and intimidation of the 'silent majority' to change for the vehement virulent minority or individual. Terrorism does not have to be violent in nature.
Or does the definition of/need for terrorism in your view, to be violent?
Irrespective of what the US believes, must we also believe this too? We all should be against violence as a tool for change.
Don't you think so?
I agree with clarkkent, there is this saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Violence is never a tool to justify things, it will just harbor hatred and the cycle will never end.
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:16 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests