Is Hillary Clinton fine with suicide bombing, use of child soldiers & blowing up heads of state ???!!!!????
Is the possible next president of the US suggesting that the ruthless terrorist group LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) in Sri Lanka need a more nuanced second look from the US government, even though the LTTE have been banned in the US since 1997 and they have assasinated the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and have killed thousands of people in Sri Lanka - including Tamils; the minority that the LTTE claims to be fighting for? Very strange, do not know much about this yet, maybe I'll have to contact the Clinton campaign to figure out all the details re: her statement. But, in the meantime, here is the original statement from the Guardian Unlimited article:
"(Guardian Unlimited) Yeah. Do you think that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, or do you think they have specific geopolitical objectives?
(Hillary Clinton) Well, I believe that terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives. Some have been ideological, others territorial. There are personality-driven terroristic objectives. The bottom line is, you can't lump all terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d'être of terrorists. I mean, what the Tamil Tigers are fighting for in Sri Lanka, or the Basque separatists in Spain, or the insurgents in al-Anbar province may only be connected by tactics. They may not share all that much in terms of what is the philosophical or ideological underpinning. And I think one of our mistakes has been painting with such a broad brush, which has not been particularly helpful in understanding what it is we were up against when it comes to those who pursue terrorism for whichever ends they're seeking."
Also, here is a perspective on Clinton's statement from the Daily Mirror, in an article by author Neville Ladduwahetty:
"The fundamental premise of Mrs. Clinton is that if an entity such as the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) sets itself a well-motivated goal, the nature of the tactics used to achieve that goal should not matter. Accepting such a premise would mean that the LTTE cannot be faulted for engaging child soldiers in war, nor could they be faulted for committing genocide, or for using civilians as human shields. Its use of suicide bombers, chemicals and every other means to achieve its goals under cover of the sanctity or loftiness of its goals would be equally acceptable. This premise postulates that terrorism used as a tactic in the pursuit of a goal is inconsequential, provided the motivations for that goal are worthy."
Well, strange events indeed. Hopefully Clinton is not soft on terrorism, specially against the LTTE - one of the most ruthless & dangerous terrorist outfits in the world. To say that the LTTE's tactics do not invalidate their goals or their very existence is similar to saying that it may have been acceptable for Al-Qaida to blow up the World Trade Center, depending on that terror group's ultimate objective (which, to me, is insane thinking). I think that a group's method of attempting to achieve an objective definitely has an effect or should be considered by others when judging the validity of the group's overall mission. Is it cool to kill civilians, including women & children, and carry out ethnic cleansing campaigns (driving out muslims & sinhalese from LTTE controlled areas), forcibly recruit children for a guerrilla army, & assassinate heads of state, scholars & even elected politicians from your own ethnic group in order to create a separate country for just those people who will quietly obey all your commands? I do not think so. Looking forward to finding out more details about what Clinton thinks about the LTTE.
- Sujewa
"(Guardian Unlimited) Yeah. Do you think that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, or do you think they have specific geopolitical objectives?
(Hillary Clinton) Well, I believe that terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives. Some have been ideological, others territorial. There are personality-driven terroristic objectives. The bottom line is, you can't lump all terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d'être of terrorists. I mean, what the Tamil Tigers are fighting for in Sri Lanka, or the Basque separatists in Spain, or the insurgents in al-Anbar province may only be connected by tactics. They may not share all that much in terms of what is the philosophical or ideological underpinning. And I think one of our mistakes has been painting with such a broad brush, which has not been particularly helpful in understanding what it is we were up against when it comes to those who pursue terrorism for whichever ends they're seeking."
Also, here is a perspective on Clinton's statement from the Daily Mirror, in an article by author Neville Ladduwahetty:
"The fundamental premise of Mrs. Clinton is that if an entity such as the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) sets itself a well-motivated goal, the nature of the tactics used to achieve that goal should not matter. Accepting such a premise would mean that the LTTE cannot be faulted for engaging child soldiers in war, nor could they be faulted for committing genocide, or for using civilians as human shields. Its use of suicide bombers, chemicals and every other means to achieve its goals under cover of the sanctity or loftiness of its goals would be equally acceptable. This premise postulates that terrorism used as a tactic in the pursuit of a goal is inconsequential, provided the motivations for that goal are worthy."
Well, strange events indeed. Hopefully Clinton is not soft on terrorism, specially against the LTTE - one of the most ruthless & dangerous terrorist outfits in the world. To say that the LTTE's tactics do not invalidate their goals or their very existence is similar to saying that it may have been acceptable for Al-Qaida to blow up the World Trade Center, depending on that terror group's ultimate objective (which, to me, is insane thinking). I think that a group's method of attempting to achieve an objective definitely has an effect or should be considered by others when judging the validity of the group's overall mission. Is it cool to kill civilians, including women & children, and carry out ethnic cleansing campaigns (driving out muslims & sinhalese from LTTE controlled areas), forcibly recruit children for a guerrilla army, & assassinate heads of state, scholars & even elected politicians from your own ethnic group in order to create a separate country for just those people who will quietly obey all your commands? I do not think so. Looking forward to finding out more details about what Clinton thinks about the LTTE.
- Sujewa
