[Styxx]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
So... what is a criminal? Does he carry a badge or a special ID? Are you exempt from the human race for shoplifting? When it comes to lawbreaking, I'm a criminal, you're a criminal, everyone we know is a criminal. It's simply impossible to stay fully within the law all your life. We're also civilians. Or is the Civilian a mythical beast, the theoretical innocent, one who only exists after he has been consumed by the dynamite explosion, like a saint?

A criminal is anyone that has commited a crime. Simple. You're not expelled from the human race or anything, you just become subject to being attacked by the police. My definition of terrorist still stands. Now, what is your definition of terrorist? Do you approve the actions of the Palestinians?

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
See the danger of over-broad definitions? Lots of people attack civilians. I didn't mention wife-beaters, parents who spank their kids, or myself, none of whom are terrorists.

Someone who beats his wife is a terrorist.

A parent spanking (lightly) his child is not attacking, he's educating.

A parent that attacks his child (causing actual damage) is a terrorist.

What do you do do consider yourself a terrorist? Maybe you are.

[Stryke 9]

But a criminal is no longer a civilian? Considering the number of car accidents I've been at fault in, I'm certainly a criminal, and I'm positive that you've committed at least one crime, however unconsciously, yourself. As has nearly everyone. There are no civilians, by your definition.

To me, "terrorist" is a term devoid of moral implications. Long before all this Afghan crap started, I was idolizing Che Guevara, the Cuban Revolutionary war hero who, incidentially, engaged in terrorist activities. If you read Bayo's manual on guerilla tactics, it's full of postassium-cholride time bombs, arson tricks, and sabotage. A terrorist is simply one who engages in attacks in order to demoralize the enemy populace or cow them into submission. It's the defining tactic of total war, a term for what every nation in the world now engages in, and the US pioneered in the 1700s.

And yes, I fully approve of... most of the Palestinian's actions. I find bus-bombing, etc. more than a bit distasteful, but recognize the futility of actively engaging the military. However, the Palestinians are the modern day's American Indians- a people being unjustly driven off their land and systematically exterminated, only they are fighting back more strongly this time. I can dig that, and were I Palestinian, I'd be the one on the rooftops fighting back as the Opressor bulldozed my home and all that I know. I still can understand the Israeli perspective and take it when I wish, but my true sympathies lie strongly in the other camp.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Styxx


Someone who beats his wife is a terrorist.

I no wanna talk you no more. You scawwy. Dubya.

A parent spanking (lightly) his child is not attacking, he's educating.

Educating? He's hitting the kid. That's not teaching ****. That's punishing. You seriously need a dictionary.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Styxx
A parent spanking (lightly) his child is not attacking, he's educating.

A parent that attacks his child (causing actual damage) is a terrorist.

Wow, I'm impressed, Sticks - didn't think anyone else thought that nowadays - thanks!

[Styxx]

Originally posted by sandwich
Wow, I'm impressed, Sticks - didn't think anyone else thought that nowadays - thanks!

People tend to get strange views of the matter on most of the "western" world. They either see that a terrorist is anyone that wears a turbant (sp?), or think that noone is a terrorist at all, and any way to fight for a cause is justified.

I live on a country that has many, many problems - more than most countries out there - but we don't have any problems with war or terrorism, which allows me a clearer view of the matter, I think. In my book, anyone that deliberately assaults another person solely to cause him harm is a terrorist, and deserves to be dealed with as such.

Don't ask about the methods I'd use to deal with them though.


And no, I never broke any criminal laws. I broke traffic laws, though - which are completely unrelated.

[Stryke 9]

Clearer? You even confused yourself with you bizarre, abstruse definition.

And now traffic laws are separate from all other laws? You really are grasping, eh?

At any rate, assuming traffic codes are somehow not laws, at this moment I am revoking my civilianhood by having my stereo cranked up to a volume that certainly comes out to at least a "disturbing the peace". So I'm in some gray area between civilian and armed soldier, I s'pose, the moral equal of Bruno the Cat Rapist and that guy with the machete. Ah well, at least it's a good song.

Wierdo.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

so he's dead? good.

To0 bad about the kids, but they're at a better place now. The same place wehre all those israeli kids go when they're killed by palestinian suicide bombers that don't apologise for killing innocents, but target them intentionally.

[Stryke 9]

Yeah! Let's kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out! They're just foreigners, anyway!

[CP5670]

A more objective definition is the one I gave: everyone in the world is a terrorist, and when two groups' interests come into conflict with each other, they fight it out. As for criminals, anyone who violates a law in their nation is a criminal.

[Mad Bomber]

[rant]

What I don't get is why I'm the only one here so far who has thought of the option of having the Israelis use smaller munitions. It would have still done the job (the guy led suicide bombers, so he deserved it) but a smaller munition would have avoided at least some of the civilian deaths.

I see Stryke's point and all. I've heard a lot of things about how Israel wants to "preserve its Jewishness"... if I were a Palestinian I'd be offended by that.

Besides, what's wrong with sharing the bloody land!?!? People are supposed to learn how to share in kindergarten, at age 5!! What gives one group any more rights than the other to have the land?


Ah, how far we've come... from swords to plowshares, and now back again...

[/rant]

[Stryke 9]

They've stopped teaching "sharing" in Kindergarten, 'cos it's Communism.

[CP5670]

Well, it isn't always that easy, since these terrorists usually go and hide inside some densely populated building; it is hard to find a single man out of that who could be hiding anywhere, so the simple solution is to just take down the whole building.

Who would really want to share, though? I always tried to avoid sharing in kindergarten when possible. Although I do agree with you that a combined multi-religious nation would be much better than two seperate nations, not to mention the current situation.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Clearer? You even confused yourself with you bizarre, abstruse definition.

And now traffic laws are separate from all other laws? You really are grasping, eh?

I don't know which country you come from, but here we have very separate law sets for criminal law, traffic law, civil law and electoral (sp?) law. A criminal is someone who breaks a criminal law - unless you think that getting divorced is a crime.

[Stryke 9]

That's courts. Civil court for non-criminal affairs (lawsuits, etc.), criminal for things that are considered crimes. Just because it has an involvement with court doesn't make it a crime- if you honestly can't distinguish what is and isn't there and can't tell the difference between someone who blows up the White House and someone who hits his wife, you really shouldn't take an interest in politics.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
[rant]I've heard a lot of things about how Israel wants to "preserve its Jewishness"... if I were a Palestinian I'd be offended by that.[/rant]

Considering that the State of Israel was founded as a home for the Jews, I'd respond: "Too bad for you."

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
That's courts. Civil court for non-criminal affairs (lawsuits, etc.), criminal for things that are considered crimes. Just because it has an involvement with court doesn't make it a crime- if you honestly can't distinguish what is and isn't there and can't tell the difference between someone who blows up the White House and someone who hits his wife, you really shouldn't take an interest in politics.

Nope, different laws. If your system has everything inside a big book that says "what makes people criminals" written on the cover, it's indeed screwed up. We have different law codes for each, and consequently different courts. You're not a criminal for breaking traffic laws, as you're not a criminal for breaking electoral laws. You're a criminal if you break criminal laws, though. Simple as that.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah! Let's kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out! They're just foreigners, anyway!

I did not say that, you did.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah! Let's kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out! They're just foreigners, anyway!

I truely hope you didn't mean that...

[Lonestar]

i just wanted to say that If the US "defends" itself from attackers by attacking them. Then they kill civilians. Its unavoidable.

Yet when another "Evildoer" kills a few citizens in his war its deemed "an act of war without regard for human safety". These monsters must be stopped at all costs. Yet those costs equal civilian lives, the very reason why they attacked in the first place.

If you are upholding something, like not killing civilians, then dont go out and kill civilians. Killing civilians shows the enemy you are no better, you just have more firepower and more men to dispose it.

Obviously innocent people die in wars, Palestine attacks Isreal, kills civilians. THEY MUST DIE!

Isreal attacks Palestine, kills civilians. Our "INTEL" must of been wrong, we never meant it.

Basically what it boils down to, is was it a deliberate attack on civilians, or an attempt to weaken a military or government?

Im sure palestine will say there attacks are to weaken a military or government, and im sure Isreal will say the same thing.

Fact of the matter is, they are both wrong in what they do. None deserver more then another IMO. Isreal has done just as much damage to the peace process as has Palestine. They both cant agree on things, but because Isreal has US backing they are the "Good Guys" while Palestine is the "Bad Guys". The good guys are winning simply because they got more money, and a nice big fat rich country with the most feared military providing it. While Palestine is still using 50 year old war toys, and re-inventing their war strategies with what they have the means for.

Both sides are killing each other, their people are dying, not ours. Yet the West is getting involved, while our blood isnt spilling and theirs is. We have our comfortable offices and houses, while they go to coffee shops and die from a bomb blast, or get run over by tanks. yet its so important for us to get involved. Maybe its time for us to spill some blood and prove we are going to end this conflict.