I think that, relative to a classical understanding of Western civilization, “courage” is meant to be a positive and uplifting quality. One which is invalidated by murder.

I qualify my assertions here at the beginning by sayign that I know little about Korean history prior to 1945 (am happy to glean smatterings of knowledge about it here, such as this fascinating item).

To be validated, IMO “courage” would need to be demonstrated in the selection of military objectives (not civilian) and also in the hope that the proposed “terrorist” action would realistically further the goal of rolling back tyranny, IN THE LIGHT OF A REASONABLE OUTLOOK AT THE TIME.

(Sorry for the all caps, I don’t know how to use “quicktags” to boldface don’t want to take time now to learn).

I notice, for example, that none of you here has made a very logical extrapolation from your rather cynical “realpolitick” (saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter etc etc).

And that extrapolation is: from the assassination of Japanese occupation officials in 1932 to that of a hypothetical assassination attempt against North Korean government officials.

Why not? If some hypothetical young but capable Koreans came to you right now and showed you a plan for the assassination of KJI, which, say, had maybe a 10% chance of achieving its objective, what would you say to them?

Woud you say, “go ahead and do it”, even though the plan has no realistic hope of changing the overall nature of the current North Korean regime? And even though the attempt, successful or not, would probably bring a terrible retribution against already suffering North Koreans?

And even though such young people might do more for the future of their country by engaging in anti-Communist political activities from the ROK, or perhaps even from peaceful (if illegal) covert activity in the PRC?

There was no reasonable way to foresee in 1932 that this action would further the aspirations of Korean independence. No outside power was going to come to Korea’s aid in the 1930’s.

Indeed, considering the general outlook of the West at the time, the only reasonable course open to any Korean nationalist would have been activity from exile to keep some sort of politically viable Korean government-in-exile going.

Or even a return to Korea to work within the Japanese administration, to ameliorate its actions and to try to protect one’s fellow countrymen from the worst aspects of it.

I’ll contrast this with another more or less very similar action (both in type and in timeline, ie pre-1945). By this I mean the assassination of Heydrich, the Nazi “protector” of Czechosolvakia (or maybe it was just Bohemia) in 1942.

An action undertaken by Czech nationalists on behalf of their government-in-exile which was a recognized ally of the UK US, and which was organized and assisted by British intelligence. The story was told in fascinating detail in a late 1940’s or early 50’s book, “Seven Men at Daybreak” (written by a British author (Paul Brickhill (?), the same authory who wrote the book “The Great Escape”, on which the heavily fictionalized 1963 movie was based).

The Czechs paid a terrible price for the successful assassination of Heydrich (which almost didn’t succeed). But, it was seen as part of the ongoing world war effort.

I wonder what the current Czechs, looking back, think about the price paid for it now. (Thousands of Czechs were executed by the Nazis in retaliation, to include the symbolic total destruction of one Czech village which in fact had had nothing to do with the plot. This was the famous destruction of Lidice).

I hope all of you will post more about the efforts of Korean nationalists to win recognition for their cause in the West during the period 1905-45. From where I sit, it seems to me that it might have been much more helpful to the cause of Korean nationalism if Kim Kuj, Yun Bong Gil, et al had foregone hopeless assasination attempts that weren’t going to change anything.

Instead, remaining alive, in which case they could have offered to serve in “free Korean” type military units with allied forces after December 1941, or maybe as individual translators for allied intelligence.

Or politically active in trying to get a potential Korean “government in exile” recognized as an allied co-belligerent.

Targeting or not targeting civilians or targeting political and military figures, for example, seems to also depend on what you think of the validity of the cause.

Sirhan Sirhan shot Kennedy as part of the struggle against Israel - by his definition. He was striking at a political figure in a colonial struggle - again by his and others’ definition.

I know cops in the US who saw assassinations of people connected to the British government and bombings in Ireland and England over Irish independance as freedom fighters.

I heard a 20 something Muslim invited on a news talk show in England say the World Trade Center was a viable target, because it was connected to the US economic domination of the Middle East and other areas of the world and the Pentagon strike was also valid because it struck at military targets.

What about in South Korea itself?

In 2002, there was a firebombing of a gate at a small US compound in Seoul. The USFK spokesman at Yongsan, the one quoted often that year and seen on the footage of the press conferences, was cut in an attempted stabbing by 2 or 3 young adult Koreans as he walked through the underpass heading to the base…..In the flyers tossed out at the firebombing, a note read something like, “USFKs in Korea and keeps killing people. We must fight back. You die or we die.” These guys saw it as colonial(-ish) occupation and the continuation of the division of Korea due to America’s power over the South.

The spokesman wasn’t a civilian. He was part of the US forces occupying Korea…

…so, is he fair game?

Agree with Orancay wholeheartedly.

I define terrorism as something that targets ordinary citizens. I??ll grant people that there might be fuzzy areas, but targeting civilians isn??t one of them.

In this regard, I would not quite agree with Orancay ?? or rather ??agree, but?????. It might be a good definition (I like it - even if there are indeed some problems with defining who are “ordinary citizens” and who are not). But the problem is that there is a number of people in the past, until the mid-20th century, who were called “terrorists” and described themselves in this way. Well, we can decide that that their self-description is sort of archaic, and that neither my own ancestors from the ‘People’s Will’, nor Korean nationalists of the 1930s were real “terrorists” in modern sense even if they described themselves as “terrorists”. But we still have to remember that it means a post-factum re-definition of the word.

It is worrisome when others use such terminology in such a debased and free manner that all distinction between military action and murder are lost. Look at the more rabid descriptions, from certain Korean sources, of General macArthur and consider such as a small example of such flawed thought.

And simply letting your country be taken by a f* country. Do you have common sense? Why complicate things for a simple matter? Read my previous comment.

How would you define “ordinary citizens?”

In 1969 Olympics (I think), armed intruders kidnapped and killed a group of atheletes. Olympians are usually considered to be a representative or symbol of a nation (See how Owens is treated by Americans), resembling more of an ambassador or representative than a “mere” athelete. Are they “ordinary citizens?” Were the killers terrorists? How about Michael Jordan or Babe Ruth? Are they “ordinary citizens?”

How about Iraqi insurgents? They mainly target military personnels or police. Are they terrorists?

How about people engaged in military research or support role? In Madison, Wisconsin in the 70s, a bomb exploded in a military research facility, killing a researcher. Are the perpetuators terrorists?

Does the intent count? What if you did not intend to kill any one (or any “ordinary citizen”) but you ended up doing so. Are you a terrorist or not? What if you just intended to destroy the property but unintentionally end up killing someone. Are you a terrorist?

How about people who manufacture/sell weapons? They play a huge role in military/political struggle. So someone who bombs a weapons factory, is he a terrorist?

I think the definition of terrorism is not so tenuous. I think Yoon was a terrorist because he used deadly force to intimidate a government for his political goals. For Koreans, he was a “good” terrorist because he was on their side. For Japanese, he wasn’t. So what? Pretending he was not is as disingenuous as making the distinction between “lawful” and “unlawful” violence, although that is something that perhaps should be discussed at some other time.

I define terrorism as something that targets ordinary citizens. I’ll grant people that there might be fuzzy areas, but targeting civilians isn’t one of them. Ah, sure, the student of political science or international relations will tell you that even in the case in Beslan the culprits are not terrorists to those who support(ed) them, but that’s just something that provides you with a good way to identify those who support terrorism. I don’t feel the need to think the term means nothing in order to try to understand the social and political causes behind it and to believe that the world could fight the causes, not just the terrorists.

Someone who seeks to assinate a leader or a specific official and limit his wrath to the individual target will surely be called a terrorist in some history books, but from a technical standpoint - what the specific mission involves - it’s an assasination. I think some people (especially Westerners) confuse two different issues: (1) the politicized reality of how history is written and (2) how we should see things as individuals when we decrypt the doublespeak.

One can call Yun Bong Gil an assasin (or some other term that could be used by both sides with relative comfort… maybe “assasin” ain’t good but you can still get a good idea of what he did) and still hate him and think he’s a criminal, a colonial who didn’t know what was good for him. Calling him a terrorist is propaganda, doublespeak designed to distract or brainwash.