The Speech

Originally posted by Black Lung
Nelson Mandela is a giant among men!

You obviously have no understanding of the political climate in South Africa at the end of the regime. This man was single-handedly responsible for preventing a civil war and the deaths of many innocent and no-so-innocent civilians in South Africa.

I'd like to know how you can justify calling him a terrorist.

Who were the not so innocent people? People of European origin?

Originally posted by iamatiger
I am just saying that the noun "terror" has more than 1 meaning. One is "extreme fear" and Saddam may be said to have governed by this kind of terror. The second meaning is more related to clandestine, illegal use of force to intimidate or coerce a government / population. "Terrorism" pertains to the second meaning of terror.

I am saying Saddam wa ...[text shortened]... cidents of terrorism in other countries and to call him a terrorist makes it sound as if he was.

So, in your opinion people who claim Sharon is a terrorist, belong in the same category as people who claim Saddam is/was a terrorist ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

So, in your opinion people who claim Sharon is a terrorist, belong in the same category as people who claim Saddam is/was a terrorist ?

Yes - I would disagree with both unless given evidence of the link to terrorism.

Originally posted by slimjim
Who were the not so innocent people? People of European origin?

I am a person of European origin...

Both sides did bad things, don't kid yourself, I just wanna know why you consider a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate a terrorist. Back it up please

Originally posted by Black Lung
I am a person of European origin...

Both sides did bad things, don't kid yourself, I just wanna know why you consider a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate a terrorist. Back it up please

Unless I am mistaken, Arafat rec'd a nobel peace prize in 1994.

Originally posted by iamatiger
I am just saying that the noun "terror" has more than 1 meaning. One is "extreme fear" and Saddam may be said to have governed by this kind of terror. The second meaning is more related to clandestine, illegal use of force to intimidate or coerce a government / population. "Terrorism" pertains to the second meaning of terror.

I am saying Saddam wa ...[text shortened]... cidents of terrorism in other countries and to call him a terrorist makes it sound as if he was.

Thanks for responding. I really do find it facinating that people can look at the same guy (Saddam) and come to such different conclusions as to him gaining power over so many millions of people using nothing but terror. Some say he is a terrorist and others that he is not. Just to clarify, and I am not picking a scab here... the reason you don't think he is a terrorist is because he only murdered and terrorized people who were born in the same homeland as he was? And that he earned the right... or became "not illegal in the strictest sense of the word" by right of ... what? I can't even guess what your thinking is on this. I would appreciate help understanding THE MAJORITY VIEW of people in the world. I do recognize that I and others like me are way outnumbered on this at this point in time. Help! 😛

If I read your last paragraph correctly, acts of terror CONFINED WITHIN NATIONAL BORDERS perpetrated by NON GOVERNMENTAL AGENTS are "Crimes" to be dealt with by the population and/or police, if they can, but are NOT "Terror". The means of dealing with "state sponsored terror" (Saddam) would be "elections" and/or "coup" or "armed resistence" by the populace. Again thank you for answering this. If I am going to be successful in redefining myself on the issue of "Terror" then I need to understand where I went so terribly wrong before.

Mike