The point that needs to be made is that terrorism is a tactic. A tactic that might be used by anyone. So Begin can take his place in history very nicely as a terrorist, a hero, a dynamic leader, or even a candy-ass if you like.
Saying the use of a single tactic defines any person or group is silly. The murder of Lord Mountbatten, the bombing of Harrads were tactic used to draw attention to the issues the IRA were organized to combat. I mention this not to debate the merits of any group, but to point attention to what is actually happening and is currently being overlooked in the media.
This tendency to single issue label is being used to serve an agenda. It is about as silly as the fellow in his cups, crying at the bar. Another patron comes up to him and says, "what's the trouble buddy?" He answers, " See that large bridge at the end of the street, I built it, do people call me the bridge builder?" "No." "And if you ever been to Paris and saw the Eiffel Tower you might recognize the copy I built for the City of Tampa accross from the Bucs stadium. But, do people call me the tower builder ?" "No!" "But suck one lousy cock."
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Publius
BTW
The whole thread (41 posts)
- The pointlessness of the argument on terrorism
- re: The pointlessness of the argument on terrorism
- I'll weigh in on this great thread
- re: The pointlessness of the argument on war against terrorism
- That would be a pointless argument!
- Just for starters...
- Well alcaray....
- Well, ok. Raoul and who else?
- re: Indeed, with time
- I don't think I would give Sadat the title of terrorist. (n/t)
- re: It wasn't him...
- I don't think I would give Sadat the title of terrorist. (n/t)
- re: Indeed, with time
- re: The pointlessness of the argument on terrorism
- re: The pointlessness of the argument on terrorism
