Foreign Countries Prevented Charles Taylor From Liberating Liberia, Witness Says

Foreign countries interfered in Charles Taylor’s revolution in Liberia and prevented the former president from liberating his people, a witness in Mr. Taylor’s defense told Special Court for Sierra Leone judges today.

“The Liberian revolution failed because foreign hands interfered in the Liberian revolution to disturb the revolution and prevent His Excellency President Taylor from liberating the country,” witness DCT 125, who finished his direct-examination today, told the court.

The witness, who has been testifying with protective measures, has given most of his testimony in closed/private sessions and on occasions when his testimony has been heard in open court, he has testified using voice and facial distortion mechanisms. When court resumed this morning, the witness was absent.  Mr. Taylor’s lead defense counsel, Courtenay Griffiths, informed the judges that the witness was ill and so could not appear in court. After being given medical treatment by a doctor who said he was fit and able to continue testifying, the judges ordered that the witness be brought to court and take the witness stand.

As he concluded his testimony today, the witness told the judges that Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) peacekeeping force was not neutral in the Liberian conflict. He said that the peacekeepers were more sympathetic towards the other Liberian warring factions at the expense of Mr. Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) rebel group.

During cross-examination by prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian, the witness told the court that the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), the Sierra Leonean rebel group which Mr. Taylor is accused of providing support for, is not a terrorist organization as alleged by prosecutors. Presiding Judge of the Trial Chamber, Justice Julia Sebutinde, asked the witness to give his definition of terrorist organization.

“It is an organization that is bent on the destruction of life and property without any meaning and purpose, to disturb the peace within the human being,” the witness said.

Mr. Taylor is charged with 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law including crimes of rape, terrorizing the civilian population, murder, conscription and use of child soldiers, looting and pillage of civilian property committed in the territory of Sierra Leone from 1996 to 2002. Prosecutors have alleged that while Mr. Taylor was not present in Sierra Leone, he exercised superior authority over RUF rebels and provided military and financial support to the rebels during Sierra Leone’s 11 years conflict. Three RUF commanders have already been found guilty and convicted by Special Court for Sierra Leone judges for similar crimes with which Mr. Taylor is charged.

Before the end of today’s proceedings, Mr. Koumjian requested that the cross-examination of the witness be suspended and that prosecutors be given more time to prepare for the cross-examination of the witness. Mr. Koumjian explained that defense lawyers for Mr. Taylor had failed to disclose the witness’s personal information to prosecutors within the 21 day period required. The prosecution request was granted and so the witness’s cross-examination was suspended.

A new defense witness will commence his or her testimony tomorrow.


  1. Both this witness and Mr. Yanks Smythe have corroborated the evidence that neither Foday Sankor nor prosecution witness Suwandi Camara were ever at the training camps in Libya.

  2. What are people that still believe, and hold witness, DCT-125 as ‘highly educated’ going to say about this brilliant definition of what a ‘terrorist organization’ was;
    It is an organization that is bent on the destruction of life and property without any meaning and purpose, to disturb the peace within the human being,” the witness said.
    The Western Dictionary defines “terrorize”; to fill with great fear: terrify, to control and dominate by intimidation or violence. While “terrorism is defined as; systematic use of terror and intimidation esp; in order to coerce.
    Therfore, what is true here is that taylor was all the “above” regardless of this brilliant man’s definition!

    1. J. fallah menjor,
      the witness was asked what was a “terrorist organization” not what “terrorize” mean.

    2. Fallah,

      Taylor is none of what you think he is. Where are your mountains of evidence that you talked about in the first place? However, let me make this point real quick because I am kind of busy right now. The dictionary definition is correct of the word. Nontheless, terrorism and its cognates are taking a very strong negative connotation. However, historically, terrorism is probably coextensive with the history of political violence. The word had been used since the 17th and 18th centuary. But in contemporary political discourse, the word is often employed as a polemical term with the intent to invoke strong emotional charged. As far as we the majority of Liberians are concerned, we voted overwhelmingly for President Taylor, thereby exernorating him of what you as in the minority may see him to be. Bear in mind now, another man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. For example, while Israel continues with her air strike on Palestine in the name of war on terror, the people of Palestine consider Israel to be a terrorist state. Conversely, while Palestinian may send their children to blow out Isrealese in the name of suicide bomber. Isreal considers them to be terrorists. Whereas in contrast, their people consider them to be freedom fighter. Fallah, all in all, Taylor is our hero. He led a revolution that was embraced and accepted to be known as the people’s popular uprising.

  3. (Understanding terrorism- according to the witness)

    This is an interesting definitive understanding of the word terrorism by the witness:

    “It is an organization that is bent on the destruction of life
    and property without any meaning and purpose, to disturb
    the peace within the human being,” the witness said.

    Well, this raises my antennas higher and generates more questions. Does this mean that when “life and property” are destroyed with meaning and purpose than we can dub whatever is taking place a revolution? Which act of armed aggression, insurrection, coup, or lawlessness does not “disturb the peace within the human being” or better yet strike trepidation and terror within the soul? Is this a philosophical rationalization by an ideologue who might be out of touch with the denotative and conceptual understanding of the word?

    I wish the witness could have flesh out his understanding in more detail but as it stands the witness’ understanding of the word “terrorism” raises more questions for me than and the persecution could capitalize on this…


    1. Noko7/Davenport,

      Just keep on asking your many questions. One day you will find answer. Probably judgment day.

  4. From a coward to a Joker as defend witnesses just show how desperate Taylor and his lawyers have become

    1. Morris Kanneh,

      Are you sure you are referring to the defense of being desperate? Please list your desperation of the defense Morris.

  5. Hey

    DCT 125 you can’t say it any better. These guys interfere with Mr.Taylor that they cause untold suffering for the Liberian. They are as black as they are painted.

    Ecomog also maintain aggressive position against Mr.Taylor N.P.F.L and his Government, Thus causing serious problem for the country.



  6. This witness is funning, he claim to be sick and the doctor heal him the same day, WHOA, what doctor does he have I need to visit that doctor. He simply needed more time to prep for his testimony lets not be naive.

    From what I am hearing from the Taylor supporters on this forum is that Taylor did liberated them so how did foreign countries prevented the liberation. Jose didn’t you and a few of your collegues said you were liberated but now your witness is saying something else. Secondly can the witness name a few of the foreign countries who prevented the liberation. Let me guest the U.S. and GB. Please these people have bigger fish to fry. If they wanted Taylor that bad they’ll simply go and get him like they’ve not other thugs like Saddam, Noriega, Milosovic, etc.

    “It is an organization that is bent on the destruction of life and property without any meaning and purpose, to disturb the peace within the human being,” the witness said. Am I dreaming or this witness just made this statement, if he did then Taylor is TOAST. So then Taylor welcome Sam B. to Monrovia knowing the crimes that were committed SL. LINK LINK LINK.

    1. John thompson,
      If this witness was to come out and say Mr. Taylor did supplied weapons to the RUF from March of 1991 to March of 2000, you won’t believe him? It sound so stupid when the prosecution stated that Mr. Taylor was supporting RUF with weapons and man power from 1991 up to 2002. I said from 1991 to 2002 because they the prosecution Charged Mr. Taylor for crimes committed in Sierra Leone from 1996 – 2002.

      But one thing the prosecution including some of us on this block fail to realised is that, Mr. Taylor did not controled the border of Sierra Leone and Liberia in 1996. He Mr. Taylor was serving on the Council of State in 1996, he has not been elected president yet to have complete control of Liberia in 1996 and disarmament was not completed yet. Therefore, ULIMO-K was still in controled of the Liberian- Sierra Leonean border.

      On the issue of Mr. Taylor liberating Liberia or Liberians, one can not say it didn’t happened to an extend. The first step was to removed the Government of Doe from power, the group he Mr. Taylor led to Liberia, the NPFL did remove the Doe government from power. You may say it wasn’t Mr. Taylor group instead, it was the INPFL but the fact of the matter is that, members of the INPFL were once part of the NPFL. The Political side of Mr. Taylor liberation plan did fail and that’s what I understand the witness as saying.
      John thompson, do you know that the US was giving LURD $5,000,000.00 per Month through Guinea to support thier ( LURD) fight in Liberia? Didn’t you hear from former US President George W. Bush that Mr. Taylor must leave Liberia?

      My question to you is, if Mr. Taylor was going to tell the President of Sierra Leone at the time that he must Leave Sierra Leone while RUF was fighting him, what were you going to say about Mr. Taylor today? You were going to say that Mr. Taylor was supporting the rebels in Sierra Leone that’s why he asked the Sierra Leonean President to leave, wouldn’t you?
      Again there were documentations that came out during Mr. Taylor testimony to prove that he was asked by the ECOWAS Committee of 5 to allow Mr. Sam Bockarie to move to Liberia inorder to end the conflict in Sierra Leone. He consistently siad that he was acting on the request of ECOWAS member States.
      If the prosecution knew that he wasn’t saying the true, why didn’t they challange his testimony on the documentations involving the ECOWAS Committee of 5 asking him to have Sam Bockarie move to Liberia?

      I think by now all of us should know that, Mr. Taylor supported the RUF which of course he said he did but the time frame is where the problem is. He said, he did from 1991 to May of 1992 when he order all NPFL fighters to leave Sierra Leone and it was the same 1992 ULIMO captured the Sierra Leonean- Liberian border which they ( ULIMO ) held controled of until the election in July,1997.

      1. Jacone

        Do you have any proof or fact aboout this $5 million a month the U.S. was giving LURD through Guinea or is this just talk. Or could it have been money the Guinean government were giving LURD for support in retaliation due to the fail coup which was supposely sponsor by taylor (key word supposely)

        Secondly when Bush told taylor to leave Liberia it was in 2003 during the bloodest standoff of the entire war. Bush told Taylor to believe becuase it was just a standoff neither sides were winning just innocent people dying.

        Furthermore, if Bush or the U.S. wanted Taylor out so bad during Taylor presidency for any reasons they can simply just go into Monrovia and snatch him up like they’ve done other leaders such as Saddam, Noriega, Milosovic, etc.

        However , the U.S. wanted no part of Liberia conflict, they simply look at it as another African civil war. Plus they had no real interest in Liberia, there were other major players in the market, iron ore was not highly needed because most cars were now been build with plastic. Firestone were no longer getting 80 to 90% of their rubber from Liberia, the list goes on.

        You saw how they used Doe, they could’ve simply help him if they had genuine interest.

        To answer your last question, of course people will say taylor is supporting RUF if he told the president of SL to step down. However, taylor does not have the power and capability to do such thing because he’s not the president of the world superpower, does not have the greatest military in the world, does not police the world majority of the time and last but not least which is very important, taylor does not have the world #1 consumers. See the U.S. can call these shots because they have the advantage. Not even Russia, China, or GB can get in their way

        Did Russia do anything to the U.S when they went into Iraq, NO, they just stood there merciless. Now one may ask why, doesn’t Russia as a huge trading market with Iraq why can’t they do something, the answer is they can’t because they do not have the World’s strongest military and consumers.

        1. John thompson,
          I am one of the very few people on here who just don’t say things just for talking sake. What I am saying here about the $ 5million dallors per Moth through Guinea for LURD. I got to know while I was at the National Trainning Center ( NTC ) in July of 2003. While I was there, I knew where LURD were going to be fighting next in Liberia; I mean the date and time. And I used to call my family in Liberia to tell them to find food and water to keep them up. If you don’t believe me, you can let me know and I will provide proof for you. I will give you phone numbers in Liberia to talk some of the people I was calling at that time!

          I think many of your supporters here can record what I said here about the death of Sam Bokarie in July or August. What I said at that time, is what Mr. Taylor said word by word when he testified about the death of Sam Bockarie. I posted that informations long before Mr. Taylor could testified about it and I posted that informations because your man Fallah was always saying that Mr. Taylor order the killing of Sam Bokarie but that wasn’t the case. But due to my engagement, there are a lot of things I just can’t talk about on here.

          Your point is well taken….this is the problem that the whole world has to deal with today. I do disagree with you on the fact that, the US have had interest in Liberia and still do today. If it wasn’t so, the US wasn’t going to sponsor resolutions in the UN to imposed arms embago on an elected government while being attack by rebels forces known fully well that, the constitutional obligation of a government is to protect it people.
          what was that all about in your honest opinions? Just because you’re the superpower, you should imposed your will on the people by all mean? Isn’t that a form of slavery or Imperialism? Secondly, many of the prosecution team are American or sent from the United States, aren’t they?

          Is the same way when Russia attacked Georgia in 2007, what did the US do to Russia? Of course nothing! Russia have supported Iran with a lot of the technology for their nuclear program, the US have done nothing to Russia as well; so it’s both ways!

  7. Aki,
    I was watching part of the 3rd witness testimony this morning, he talked about they came together in Sierra Leone even before Ali Kabbah met them. He told the court that Foday Sankor was infact a photographer at the time when they were planning their way of take control of the Sierra Leonean presidency. He told the court also when Ali Kabbah came into contact them including Foday Sankor. I wasn’t able to follow the rest of the testimony for the day but I wll read the transcripts later. I think we will hear something shocking from this witness since he is an Sierra Leonean and moreso, he was close to Foday Sankor from day one.

      1. Tracey,
        Could you inform the people responsible for posting the transcripts on the court’s website know we appreciate very much that the transcripts are now being posted the next day. Please let them continue the good.

  8. Hello Everyone,

    What is Terrorism? Who defines it a such? What cultural and sociological frame work does this definition fit? What parties benefit or continue to benefit from this definition at the detriment of other nation’s self determination.

    Some of us here have tried to define it as it fits the context of western dictionaries. Yes and i agree with that definition. However in as much as i agree with that definition, i disagree with it in for many reasons one of those reasons being the fact that it has historically been used by the west to demonize and instill fear and destabilize governments it did not agree with or saw as being a threat to it’s own national interest.

    I hope we are not myopic about the events of the recent past; The Iraq war being one of them, the panama incident, the Cuban missile crises and the Africa revolutions of the late 50s and early 60s which were termed terrorists by the very system and frame works under which Mr. Charles Taylor is being tried. Charles Taylor can go to jail for all i care, but we must be careful as to what we term to be terroristic or what we allow the west to term to be terrorists.

    The acts that happened in Liberia and SL where barbaric and inhumane, the system was designed to instill fear and to suppress but the question we must ask on an intellectual level is if the origin and etymology of the words being used here with reference to the conflicts in these places.

    The word terrorist presents a slippery slope in many ways.. and in the context of Liberia and SL there are acts that could be characterized as terrorist act however the etymology of the word terrorist does not fit within this context since the origin of what happened in Liberia or SL was not of terrorist nature i believe.

  9. With due respect, Walter, the word “Terrorism”has nothing to do with its context. What is relevant here is its closely relation to acts perpetrated by the accused and his colaborators, who, now, happen to be witnesses testifying behind masks! Why waste time over the contextual use of this word vs physical acts that were results;esp missing limbs,rapes, murders, scars that remain visible to you and me? I know everyone attempts to show their version of this case but we should not forget the physical scars of those who are direct victims to this despecable crimes by a so called ‘liberator’ for Liberia, taylor!

    1. Dear Mr Fallah,

      I have followed your commentaries closely and while i can in no way condemn your biases since i don’t know on what grounds you base them, i must however disagree with you. Let me begin by agreeing with you that the acts that were perpetrated in Liberia and SL were as heinous and barbaric as can be, that still cannot be termed as Terrorism this is because the context of the turmoil in Liberia was never one of Terrorism but of worrying factions whose action however similar to terrorism were not of Terrorist origin.

      I must however be sensitive to the feeling of the victims in this case as the victims of wars in other places such as Somalia, the Congo most especially who have also suffered and continue to suffer from rapes, torture, and all other sorts of barbaric acts. While we might want to ascribe to it the term terrorist acts, these conflict are in no way driven by terrorist ideologies.

      If we are to use the word terrorism as blanketly as you wish to do, then i will urge you to look around, the real terrorism happening in Africa is not one of pure violence as you seek to see it. It is one of economic deprivation brought upon by leaders who have refused to shoulder and fight of the well being of their own people. These same leaders of billions starched in foreign bank account, with mansions in the most expensive destination and zip codes in the worlds while women and children die by the minute because the cannot afford a simple tetanus shot or because they cannot afford to buy the fake and diluted malaria medication that fill the markets everyday. We must readjust our thinking and be inventing in our approach or else we are doomed because we as a people are still set in our neocolonialist mentality failing to see the real ills plaguing African Nations. The victims of Liberia or SL do not really care what happens to Charles Taylor, right now they will tell you, put a chicken in my pot so i can feed by family, give me an education so that i can begin to build a future, use the money from this trial to rehabilitate us and set us on the road to a better future. That is not happening, here we have Charles Taylor in his expensive suits, eating 3 square meals a day, having the best health care money can buy, drinking wine even in jail and you talk of trial. I submit to you, we are wasting millions that will in no way shape or form help the economies or the sustainable development of these two countries who have seem such much violence helped in part by the excesses of the west. When it comes time for a share responsibility in this matter the west and uncle Sam pick the little fish while its business us usual in pairs, London, New york etc.

    2. Fallah can you stop grabbing for straws here for a minute and contemplate the dilema the prosecution is at this stage that necessitated their plea for postponement of the cross examination of this witness? comeon the prosecution have been caged and connered by the testimony of the first two defense witnesses and as you can see from the case the defense is presenting, they are making use of eye witnesses and participants in the conflict. the defence has attacked the very foundation of the charges against Mr Taylor and I do not see how the prosecution will get themselves out of this web that the defence has put them in. “Key” prosecution witness Suwandi Kamara has been shown to be noting but a blatant Liar he was never in Libya as part of the SOFA Group Training there. Also Prosecution Allegation that Mr Taylor hatched a plan in Libya with Foday Sankoh has also been shown to be false. no wonder the prosecution is hiding behind not being giving notice of 21 days to seek postponement of cross examination. the actual fact is that they have retreated to a corner to try to salvage their crumbling case. SO Fallah you have got more problems on your hands than argueing on the defination of Terrorism which as far as this case is concerned is IRRELEVANT.

    3. These are what we call eye witnesses accounts. I’m very impressed with how this witness addressed the much talked about 21 carat diamond story that prosecution has alleged that was given to Mr. Taylor. He did not say they say, but said I was present and remained with Mr. Sankor and was part of the team that escaped with him. I think those forces that attacked Mr.Sankor’s residence must be made to account for said diamond. They are all looters and criminals in uniforms. Go on brother tell them that Mr. Taylor is not responsible for Sierra war, but the people on Sierra Leone. Fallah and the many anti tayloy here, what do have to say after listing to one of your own brothers from Sierra Leone? Humm, watch out for our next witness who is an American. I promise that we are coming in full no jock about this. We will do what we have to do, when we have to do it.

      Harris K Johnson

  10. The good thing about the defense witnesses so far is that, they are not saying Fallah told John thompson, John thompson told Tracey and Tracey told he the witness that Foday Sankor was never at the training camp in Libya! Instead, they are saying that they the witnesses were in Libya and Sankor was never there. Do any of your prosecution supporters believe that Foday Sankor didn’t train in Libya? I don’t think your will be honest enough to say it by the way! Everything they have said so far have nothing to do with their great grandpa telling their father and their father telling them who Mr. Taylor was, what he did and how he did it!



  12. Teage,

    Good to hear that you are now getting down to reality. Good to hear that you are aware that our GDP was close to that of Japan at some point in time. Now there is vast difference between Liberia and Japan. Why is that so? The answer lies in what Taylor is trying to do unravel Liberia from the tyranny of America.

    Yes, the President that took Liberia so high that our GDP was acclaimed was disliked by America until they assassinated him. Yes they killed Tolbert because he wanted to be independent and non-align.

    So it is good that you are coming home to the revolutionaries. Welcome.

    1. Andrew
      I’m not sure what gave the impression that I was changing my mind about what I previously said about Liberia. I’m not ignorant nor a fool to make up such a lie and then come on a website with majority of Liberians and post it. I stand by what I said 100%. Everything I’ve learned about Liberia I learned it through reading and research. I read in an journal article that Liberias GDP was close n and that we were in the guiness book of world record for being the richest country in sub-sahara Africa in 78; it is something I have always remembered because I was really impressed by that because I figure in 78 Liberia was way smaller Japan, and still is, so if we had a GDP close to Japan our ecomimic state was pretty darn good!!
      I didn’t decide in my head to make it up. but as I stated if you disagree, and you intelliently ask where did you get your facts I will surely let you know and if you belive the article is debatable or absolutely factual then we can have a conversation. Versus ‘youre speaking lies or you’re a liar’.
      But like I said before I stand by what I said. If I find the article since its been six years since I wrote my freshman research paper on Liberia I will be glad to post the article and then we can continue from there…until than……

      1. Ms. Teage,
        So what you are claiming now, that in fact you do not know if Liberia is in the Guinness book of world record for being the richest country in sub-Sahara Africa in 78. Ms. Teage so what you admit to is passing on someone else lie or misinformation.

        1. Ken,
          I think MS. Teage had a shot of champaing and just decided to mess with us since we are winning. But thats ok, we accept that too…

  13. Fallah Menjor, John Thompson and Davenport,

    I have read the discussion here regarding terrorism. It appears that some here are being fooled into believing that it is wrong for a people to resist tyranny as this could be termed as terrorism. The way the word revolutionary is being potrayed today has taken on a cynical and ignominious connotation. It is being depicted to be almost synonimous to a terrorist. I firmly resent and diagree with this.

    Terrorism is so loosely defined that almost any form of resistance can now be termed as terrorism regardless of whether the oppressed has a genuine reason for using violence or not. I see this as another ploy of control by the strong to ensure that the weak is prohibited from resisting their control and rule.

    Let’s examine this a little further, if we say that terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes”, then what is a people to do in the face of oppression; as say in the case of Apathied or slavery? Are they to aquience simply because they are afraid of being termed as terrorists or are they to do what is their God given and inate right to resist by whatever means is possible to obtain freedom. I believe the later is the only option.

    We have to stop hiding behind words here that only serve to further subjugate our freedoms. We do not hear the powerful countries being called terrorists when they use force, violence and threats to intimidate small countries and force their leaders and people to be subjected to handcuffs chains and all other forms of humiliation. They are termed as saviours and as working in the interest of democracy and good governance. They can coerce the populations to change their long held cultural beliefs or be termed trators, but yet they are termed as liberating the civilians of these socalled “uncivilized” societies. When people are told that “you are either with us or against us” and have no choice but to succomb rather than be anihilated, yet they are called saviours.

    Why then when people in their own country decide to rise up against their government, a government that had suppressed their people for ten years, is the act now being likened to terrorism. Where is the line drawn between what is permissible force by the West, and unpermissible force by the people of small countries? Does it relate to the size of the perpetrator of violence and the personality of the perpetrator that determines the concept or is the concept absolute?

    I believe we need to reflect on this, while we pass judgement on a political organisation deciding to take up arms to remove a tyranical regime . Why are they being now called terrorists? Why is it wrong to want to liberate your people?

    You all must all remember that it was not tooo long ago when Mandela was being called a terrorist by the White Apathied regime for wanting liberation for his people and the civil rights movement was being termed as a terroristic organisation for wanting emacipation. We need to watch out. We run the risk of having all resistance stamped out under this guise of it being terrorism. And when this has been accomplished, we would be right where we were in the 1960s but only this time we would not even be able to resist or protest; as we would be construed to be terrorist.

    it is nice and fine to be angry with this one man but we have to look at the bigger picture sagaciously and not get lost in grandiloquence and jargon. Let’s perspiciously speak the truth and not asperse words such as terorrists to people who had noble intentions.

    1. Helen, Walter, and co:

      By this logic I guess than Tolbert was a terrorist who had to be removed by Doe…and Doe was a terrorist who had to be removed by Taylor and Prince Johnson…and Taylor was a terrorist who had to be removed by MODEL and LURD. So we either put them all in the same bunch or remove them all.

      well, you see where things can go, if we bring personal and contextual meaning to a word…get convoluted and out of control. Let us take one step away from understanding of the word terrorism. Consider the word “kill” for an example. will the word change if it has purpose and meaning – as in ‘I kill because I was hungry’? will it change if it does not disturb the soul of humans – as in ‘I did not kill him/her because it did not disturb the peace within the soul of that person’? I really do no think that understanding a word has anything to do with Western imposed lens as it has to do with the understanding from the lexicon. All revolutionary,civil, and liberation wars are associated with deaths, destruction, and fear and at such terrorize the “peace within the soul” of many except unless perhaps those who are the instrument of destruction.

      I am approaching the word with the simplest lens, not a western lens…and I think the brother slipped.


  14. Davenport,

    My response was specifically to the allusion made earlier that the act of a revolutionary was a terroristic one. I endeavoured to draw attention to the fact that what is at one time called a terroristic act is at another time termed liberation by another. It is clearly seen when the powerful wants to put controls on the less powerful that they tend to term their act of liberation as being a terroristic one.

    I used the very definition that was used earlier by Fallah menjor as taken from the dictionary he used. I did a very brief analysis of the definition and pointed out that there should be some caution used in attaching the term to describe every act within that context. We have to be aware that the when it is perpetrated by the powerful it is totally approbated. However when it is perpetrated by the weak it is vitiated.

    I am not goin into the onomatopoeia of the word terrorist but the persception attached to it. i therefore fail to see your point.

    1. Yes, $$ker is missed here! I hope he returns back to our conversation soon.

Comments are closed.