The words "radical" and "terrorist" do NOT mean the same thing.
A radical is a person who believes that small, incremental(usually cosmetic)changes of the sort proposed by those who call themselves "moderates" are not enough to solve the problems of this nation or of the world. The radical believes that deeper changes, changes in the very structure of life itself, are necessary if the issues at hand are to be dealt with effectively.
A radical can, in some cases, be violent, but is, more often than not, non-violent.
The radical may not "work within the system", but she or he works in a positive spirit, seeking to genuinely make life better for the vast majority of people. A radical can, and often is, more likely to be peaceable and sensible in the course of action or the tactics she or he adopts.
A radical is a person who is on the side of hope-not "Hope" as in the now-discredited campaign phrase of a few years ago, but true hope, deep hope, passionate and uncompromising hope.
A terrorist is just a person who uses fear to make his or her point. Usually, terrorists have no positive agenda. They are more likely to simply seek vengeance against those people or nations they see as the cause of the misery that angers them-but they, themselves, have no real ideas for ending that misery, or in some cases, no real interest in ending it, for the misery is what allows them to recruit others to join them in what they do.
A terrorist is NOT a radical. A radical is not a terrorist.
Never treat the two words and the two groups as if they are synonymous.
The world has no need for terrorists. It has EVERY need for radicals.
= new reply since forum marked as read
