(Ukljucivanje mozga vise nego preporucljivo).
(* ako stignem nekad probat cu da prevedem ovo za ljude koji nisu prevse jaki sa engleskim jezikom / btw. svaka pomoc ljudi sa viskom vremena je dobrodosla)
A discussion on resistance and terrorism, word by word by Che Guevara and Osama Bin Laden. What makes the two men different? What makes one a symbol of resistance and the other a terrorist? What do they have, if anything, in common? One was inspired by the teachings of socialism and one by the teachings of Islam. Did they pervert the message or are they just part and parcel of resistance to the injustice? Think wisely, openly and without fear, it is nothing new in history for empires to be challenged and destroyed. It is Left to your imagination with both speeches for you to absorb and make conclusions.
Aki Nawaz
FUN DA MENTAL “ALL IS WAR” MANIFESTO
http://www.dicklaurentisdead.com/fun-da ... iswar.html
BIN LADEN: “How about the killing of innocent civilians? The killing of innocent civilians, as America and some intellectuals claim, is really very strange talk. Who said that our children and civilians are not innocent and that shredding their blood is justified? That it is lesser in degree? When we kill their innocents, the entire world from east to west screams at us, and America rallies its allies, agents, and the sons of its agents. Who said that our blood is not blood, but theirs is? Who made this pronouncement? Who has been getting killed in our countries for decades? More than 1 million children died in Iraq and others are still dying. Why do we not hear someone screaming or condemning, or even someone’s words of consolation or condolence? How come millions of Muslims are being killed? Where are the experts, the writers, the scholars and the freedom fighters, where are the ones who have an ounce of faith in them? They react only if we kill American civilians, and every day we are being killed, children are being killed in Palestine. We should review the books. Human nature makes people stand with the powerful without noticing it. When they talk about us, they know we won’t respond to them. In the past, an Arab king once killed an ordinary Arab man. The people started wondering how come kings have the right to kill people just like that. Then the victim’s brother went and killed the king in revenge. People were disappointed with the young man and asked him, “How could you kill a king for your brother?” The man said, “My brother is my king.” We consider all our children in Palestine to be kings. We kill the kings of the infidels, kings of the crusaders, and civilian infidels in exchange for those of our children they kill. This is permissible in law and intellectuality.”
CHE: “Acts of sabotage are very important. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between sabotage, a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare, and terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution. Terrorism should be considered a valuable tactic when it is used to put to death some noted leader of the oppressing forces well known for its cruelty, his efficiency in repression, or other quality that makes his elimination useful. But the killing of persons of small importance is never advisable, since it brings on an increase of reprisals, including deaths. There is one point very much in controversy in opinions about terrorism. Many consider that its use, by provoking police oppression, hinders all more or less legal or semi-clandestine contact with the masses and makes impossible unification for actions that will be necessary at a critical moment. This is correct; but it also happens that in a civil war the repression by the governmental power in certain towns is already so great that, in fact, every type of legal action is suppressed already, and any action of the masses that is not supported by arms is impossible. It is therefore necessary to be circumspect in adopting methods of this type and to consider the consequences that they may bring for the revolution. At any rate, well-managed sabotage is always a very effective arm, though it should not be employed to put means of production out of action, leaving a sector of the population paralyzed ( and thus without work) unless this paralysis affects the normal life of society. It is ridiculous to carry out sabotage against a soft-drink factory, but it is absolutely correct and advisable to carry out sabotage against a power planet. In the first case, a certain number of workers are put out of a job but nothing is done to modify the rhythm of industrial life; in the second case, there will be displaced workers, but this is entirely justified by the paralysis of the life of the region.”