Prof. Anders Karlsson, the man the JoongAng Ilbo accused of calling Kim Gu a terrorist, refutes the JoongAng in an interesting interview with OhMyNews (Korean). The key here, according to Karlsson, is that he explained how the current definition of terrorism differs from that of the early 20th century. He also slammed the JoongAng reporter for distorting facts and shoddy journalism.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
15 Comments
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Half an ovation for Karlsson for talking back to the Hive. But why pull your punches. Kim was a terrorist then and now.
Please explain your assertion that Kim Gu was a terrorist (in the modern sense). I completely understood what Karlsson was saying (the “old” definition of terrorism would also include French Resistance, British SOE, etc.), and had an inkling when I read the previous article that that was what Karlsson really had meant. (boo to Korean media, nothing new there).
But the modern definition of terrorism includes, most importantly, the intent to target and kill mass amounts of common civilians in their actions. Has there been incidents where Kim Gu and the ad hoc government ever targeted common civilians for attacks?
I’ve noticed that someone brought up the whole issue of “well, someone could’ve gotten hurt during the bombings.” in the previous article. That’s not targeting civilians; that’s collateral damage. While it is unfortunate, it happens all the time during armed conflict.
Why are you printing his name now?
Why did you not print it before?
How do they get the chocolate inside the shell an M&M?
All this is very strange
E.g.,Yun Bong-gil on April 29, 1932 threw a bomb at Japanese military and civilian delegates in Hongkew Park, Shanghai at a celebration of the Japanese Emperor’s birthday. He killed a general and a civilian official, and wounded several others, including Shigemitsu Mamoru, Japanese Minister to China, who lost a leg. Chinese onlookers also were killed and wounded.
I think it is immaterial that one of the victims was a military man as the killing took place outside the bounds of any military action.
Your remark about collateral damage is offensive, especially outside the scope of military operations.
Terrorism also does not require mass casualties. Often a single victim, if highly placed will suffice to accomplish the purpose of extra-legal intimidation. Kim Gu, e.g., also liked to do away with his Korean domestic political opponents and try to derail their political movements, as e.g., when he orchestrated the assassination of the editor of the Donga Ilbo and leader of the democratic party.
The winners are called freedom fighters or revolutionaries. The losers are terrorists or insurgents. That’s the way it’s always been and always will be. Since the winners always write the history, it all depends on your point of view and whether or not you’re on the winning or losing side.
#5= unadulterated PC bullshit.
I will also assert that the Kim Ku / Yun Bong-gil 1932 Shanghai bombing was in no way “terrorism” — it was legitimate military action by a resistance-to-occupation movement. Japanese military and political leaders were the target, not civilians.
It’s not bullshit, it’s strictly a point of view. Being PC is compromising one’s beliefs so as not to offend the opposing view. It’s calling a spade a shovel instead of a spade.
To the Japanese, Kim Ku is a terrorist, to the Koreans, he’s a freedom fighter. It’s not PC, it’s just what people believe. Karlsson has not compromised his beliefs and he’s not afraid to state that opinion. He’s not sugar-coating the way he feels. Other people such as disagree with him, and that too is their right. Neither opinion is politically correct. You think Kin GU is a terrorist, and 50 million people think you’re full of shit. Go across the water, and all of a sudden millions of Japanese will suddenly have the same point of you as yourself, in which case your view will be the right one.
Calling a “terrorist” an “insurgent” is PC. Calling a terrorist a freedom fighter is a point of view.
go troll somewhere else. I think you have enough of that hot air stored up now to get the good ship Sperwer underway again.
an insurgent is actually a kinder term for terrorist scum bag but hey when they car bomb outside of elementary schools do they really deserve to write history?
i guess in some peoples eyes they will always be freedom fighters
haha the freedom to chop of heads of anyone different than themselves
the freedom to stone people to death for lets say dishonoring the family
the freedom to plant bombs on subways during morning commutes
want more examples
Remember, the target of the attack you talk about wasn’t civilian targets. They were the leaders of a hostile nation, not common civilians. What you talk about fits the old definition of a terrorist, but not the modern one.
In addition, your stance on collateral damage would only work if Kim Gu was running a regular army of a standing government; he was not. His organization was called “Imshi” government (temporary), and until it was recognized retroactively by the modern Korean government at its creation, it was not a standing government.
And are you talking about Jang Duk Su, when you say Kim Gu assassinated Donga Ilbo editor and democratic leader? I ask because Jang Duk Su had both jobs. Here, you’re pretty much spinning the historical fact for the sake of your argument. In other words, you’re just using speculations and rumors of the time as a stated historical fact, which, I must say, is very dishonest.
I guess to the Japan centric historic revisionists have a hard time with the concept with Kim Ku, because to them, there was no Korean resistance against the Japanese. All Koreans were cooperating and were happily incorporated into the Japanese empire. So how to explain away this kind of Korean resistance? Call it ‘terrorism’, downplay it to the max, and portray it as something that was done abnormally.
“Go across the water, and all of a sudden millions of Japanese will suddenly have the same point of you as yourself, in which case your view will be the right one.”
I see you point, but this is assuming that Kim Gu is a known commodity in Japan. Also, there is a substantial number of Japanese who are not terribly proud of the colonial period. Find me a Korean who doesn’t view Kim Gu as a hero. (I just think that like the Dokdo “debate”, one side takes the issue a little more seriously than the other one does.)
The term “terrorism” carries implications that the actions of the perpetrator rests on less than solid moral ground. That’s what makes this an issue more than mere semantics.
In order to judge whether Kim Ku et al was indeed a terrorist in the contemporary sense, it is necessary to have a close examination of the man’s life…which I highly doubt anyone here has done, judging by the comments.
Sperwer just commented on how my post was politically-correct bullshit. I was just pointing out the nuances of the English language and the differences between politically-correct bullshit and having a point of view.
I wasn’t debating on whether Kim-Gu was a terrorist or not, just on how Sperwer’s choice of words used to describe Kim-Gu depended on what your point of view was. He thinks Kim-Gu is a terrorist and many Koreans see him as a Freedom Fighter for the same actions that have given us this debate in the first place.
As Mcnut pointed out, insurgent is a kinder word for terrorist, therefore, making insurgent the PC word-of-the-day for terrorist. This is NOT a point of view. See the difference?
It all boils down to being the same shit, different pile. My point was that I wasn’t spouting politically-correct crap, but depending on who you were and your point of view, that Professor Karlsson (and Sperwer) have just as a legitimate point of view of who Kim-Gu was, as the Koreans who think of him as a hero. In this case, the Japanese have been outed from Korea and are the losers, so the Koreans, who are the winners, and (re)written their history, have determined that the “insurgent” Kim-Gu is now a freedom fighter.
If we were not celebrating this holiday today, and the Japanese were still in control of Korea, we wouldn’t even be having this debate. Kim-Gu wouldn’t even be under consideration as a ‘freedom fighter’ and Sperwer’s view of Kim-Gu as a terrorist would be correct– politically.
“I guess the Japan centric historic revisionists have a hard time with the concept with Kim Ku, because to them, there was no Korean resistance against the Japanese. All Koreans were cooperating and were happily incorporated into the Japanese empire. So how to explain away this kind of Korean resistance? Call it ‘terrorism’, downplay it to the max, and portray it as something that was done abnormally.”
WELL SAID, CM!!!! Hopefully the right-wing Japanese history revisionists and gbevers will pay attention to what you wrote.