Every word spoken by a leader of nation is based on polices and method. It will be a sniper shot and not a shot gun blast. When terrorism is defined as violence against civilians,it is hugely misconfined. It is a technique by which terror is created in the minds of teh target. Be it a nation, a race or an induvidual. It is done so as to exhort and dominate. It is a method of war. it was as prevelant inancient times where loorting,arson and rape where weapons. Unfortunately inaddition to these primitive weapons, we have guns, bombs and missiles as well.
when a country embarks on terrorism to neogotiate with a stonger opponent, it is war which has not been declared. India and pakisthan have been at war for decades. why has india not risen and said enough is enough?? Cost of waging a conventional war i svery high. but when will this stop and escalate into a full fleged war??when we have a 911??
India need to setup a plan to finish this off and agressively pursue this till we reach an agreement. if a crime is confessed will it be any less criminal?? when A Q Khan had proliferated N.technolgy to numerous rogue nations, why has he become an induvidual and not the nations leader
I would suggest you to kindly look your actions that you took against IRAQ and Afganistan.That is a act of sheer terrorism. Kindly let them live there life freely.
terrorism is not any violence against civilians.its any violence against ourselves.prez musharraf is fully aware of what facilities pakistani so called terrorists are providing to different people to become terrorists or whatever...terrorism can be removed if politicians change themselves into more gud human beings..making terrorists surrender is not gonna carve out anthing...
I for one (and I'm sure there will be others who agree with me) cannot accept the fact that terrorism has got something to do with civilians alone. If we start defining and accepting terrorism to be so, it would become an escape route for justifying mindless violence against the state, if not against civilians. To me, terrorism is mindless violence, be it against the state or its leaders, the army or whatever. It's nothing but a proxy war. And how can such a thing be justified. Although Mr. Musharraf is still wishy washy on terrorism, I think his language this time around has toned down considerably. Let's hope a peaceful resolution to the conflict does happen.
This definition of terrorism means the 'extremists' shooting at paramilitary or police personnel are not terrorist. If a police barrack is rammed with a car bomb or a bridge built by military is dynamited, it is not terrorism. It is difficult to believe that a person with his capability would not use word with utmost care to intend precisely what he means to convey. This definition appears to be designed for specific applicability.
One prays that reality of gravity of the situation brings the necessary change and India's real 'hitaishi' intent sinks in his doubting mind.
