Korean Terrorists?




 
--
 
July 29th, 2010  
Korean Seaboy
 
 

Topic: Korean Terrorists?


Well, as I was reminiscing about my elementary days with my friends, my friend mentioned that he was an elementary teacher and that his students were learning about Korea during the occupation by Japan. He said that his students weren't interested and that he was sad how students today have no sense of patriotism and are lazy. This brought about the topic of occupied Korea under Japan. It was during 1910~1945. Well, we were talking about the heroes during that time.
There were several people. Ahn-Jung-Kun who assasinated Ito Hirobumi who was the Japanese governor for Japan. There was Yun-Bong-Gil and Lee-Bong-Chang who threw bombs at Japanese military bases. Also, there were the resistance army who used guerilla tactics against the Japanese army. There were also the protests that were suppressed by the Japanese Army. Yu-Gwan-Soon who was a woman that participated in many protests and were caught and tortured to death.
Well, my question is whether our people's actions against the Japanese forces were justified. The Muslim terrorists attacked civilians, but also attacked the Western soldieres. Does that mean that the Korean resistance were terrorists? Please answer
July 29th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
That is why the line between terrorist and freedom fighter is often murky.
As far as I know, the Korean resistance did not engage civilians, but focused on military and government targets. I could be wrong, but that is the way I know it.
If that is true, that would give them much more legitimacy.
Personally I don't like the application of the word "terrorist" anywhere. It doesn't really mean anything and it simplifies the face of a complex enemy.
July 29th, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
That is why the line between terrorist and freedom fighter is often murky.
As far as I know, the Korean resistance did not engage civilians, but focused on military and government targets. I could be wrong, but that is the way I know it.
If that is true, that would give them much more legitimacy.
Personally I don't like the application of the word "terrorist" anywhere. It doesn't really mean anything and it simplifies the face of a complex enemy.
A group that attacks enemy soldiers & facilitys are ligit, while those who target innocent civilians (also or exclusivly) would be Terrorists. Read somewhere that the original Kim Il Sung was a leader of anti Japanese fighters early in the 20th Century who eventually disappeared(died, killed?) & the Communist Kim Il Sung stole his identity.
--
July 29th, 2010  
A Can of Man
 
 
Hmmm, no I'm pretty sure that the Kim Il-sung guy was the real guy.
As far as I know, most of the true anti-Japanese resistance fighters went to North Korea when the partitions were taking place. South Korea was very shy of such independence war heroes but had more than enough collaborators than most care to admit.
July 29th, 2010  
rattler
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
A group that attacks enemy soldiers & facilitys are ligit, while those who target innocent civilians (also or exclusivly) would be Terrorists. -snip-
Ouch.

I am sure you did not mean to, but with the highlighted word you just called our ISAF actions over there terrorism by definition.

Rattler
 


Similar Topics
Syngman-Rhee was an unworthy korean president.
President Addresses Troops at Osan Air Base in Korea
U.S. would commit huge force to thwart N. Korean offensive
Chechen terrorists probed
Bounty is placed on Korean soldiers in Iraq