Talk:Thenmuli Rajaratnam/Archive

Old discussion before 2007

Was Thenmuli a terrorist?

Read the definition of a terrorist.

Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror," are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".

In this case was it

intended to create fear? Yes
perpeterated for an ideological goal? check
deliberately target non-combatants? and yes again

It doesn't matter whether she was raped or not, if you indiscriminately kill innocent civilians you ARE a terrorist. Period. —This is part of a comment by Snowolfd4 (of 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Note to other editors: I had removed the above post since I regarded it a personal attack (not directed at me), and it does not contribute constructively to the conversation. The original poster insists on keeping it there, so be it. May others judge if it makes the poster look good.

Please, other editors, let's not go down that path. Let's not get provoked by name calling; remain reasonable and contribute constructively, so that we can reach consensus about this article. Thank you. — Sebastian 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion is about the question if she should be included in category:Terrorists, the relevant criteria are not in the article Terrorist, but defined in the category. There is naturally a difference since e.g. state terrorists are in their own category.

Most of the definition for a terrorist is the same as that for an assassin; I therefore asked for clarification on category talk:Terrorists. This is a general question, not just specific to Thenmuli or LTTE; I would like to see what comes out of that discussion first. — Sebastian 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the hierarchy of the chain of command for his responsibility in the past is not a civilian target. Rajive Ghandhi acted almost as the Commander of Chief of the Indian Army, though in India it was with constitutionally weak Indian President.SAR23 14:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chain of command? Do you know Rajiv Ghandi wasn't Prime Minister when he was killed? He was pretty much an ordinary citizen campaigning in an election. And what about the 16 others who died? Were they part of the "chain of command" as well? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People can't do whatever they want when they are in office and then once they lose their positions can't claim they are innocents (because at that time they are ordinary citizens). Still they are liable for all their past actions. Rajive Ghandi's time IPKF involved various chaotic operations and human rights violations. She targetted Rajive Ghandi only, not the civilians.SAR23 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are always liable for any collateral damage they bring about. --Sharz 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored

I just refactored the discussion here because I feel it is better if the rape discussion is discussed independently of the terrorist allegation. This does of course not mean that such a connection can not be made; I am aware that SAR23 introduced the rape argument in order to strengthen the point that she was not a terrorist, but since SAR23 didn't write so explicitly there was luckily no problem with refactoring. I did remove the words "There seems to be a number of issues relating to this article" because they became superfluous. I tried to be neutral; if I made any mistakes please let me know below. — Sebastian 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

There is alot of dead convo with extremely confusing formatting on this talk page. I will archive it within 36 hours if no objections are raised.--Sharz 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]