I don't think you can negotiate with Eric either. His head is so brainwashed with propaganda he reads on the internet it just does not seem possible.

Please define "terrorists". Give a solid definition too. Obviously we cannot get inside people's heads and know what they are thinking, so give a definition that defines terrorists based on their actions, not on what your opinion of their thoughts are. Obviously if we cannot negotiate with terrorists, we need to know who exactly are terrorists and who are not.

Isn't that where most people's points come from??

Eric 'terrorist' is whatever they want it to be... If an Israeli would go blow himself up right now in Gaza he'd prolly be considered a terrorist...or anyone else for that matter...

Look on the bright side US doesn't look as bad anymore, even tho we support Israel's actions...

:confused:
Dude, how about we not play dumb, OK?? If a young guy straps C4 to his belly and comes up to your family in a crowded shopping mall and blows your parents, your kids, and everyone else in a 50-foot radius indiscriminately to Kingdom Come, that ain't no "freedom fighter" (as much as you may try to rationalize it in your warped mind). That's a terrorist. Indiscriminate targeting of civilians with intent of killing and maiming.

A GPS-guided munition from an F-16 lands in a mosque believed by intel to house Hamas militants firing rockets, but instead it wipes out an innocent Palestinian family taking shelter there: NOT terrorism. Unfortunate?? Extremely. Tragic?? Most definitely. Terrorism?? Absolutely not.

The reason? Because INTENT MATTERS.

In-discriminate targeting of civilians so that surviving civilians are terrorized about future in-discriminate targeting: that's terrorism.

Targeting of combatants who are trying to inflict lethal harm to your own civilians forces: not terrorism. Even if that targeting leads to inevitable collateral damage such as civilian deaths.

Don't try to take a simple and obvious term like "terrorism", and turn it into a philosophical and moral equivalence to legitimate targrting of combatants, which on occasion leads to innocent bystanders getting caught in the crossfire. ESPECIALLY when the combatants fire away and then take refuge behind those civilians.

Most democracies on Earth do not have a problem with defining this term. Only YOU seem to have a problem with "terrorism" definition, and try to give them a "freedom-fighter" tag. Just about every Democratic government recognizes terrorism when it happens.

To begin with, let's leave nationality and religion out of this equation. Terrorism is obviously terrorism regardless what what religion or nationality someone is and what religion or nationality the victims are. I know it's difficult for you, but please try to give examples without including that.

In the above example, what if instead of a GPS-guided munition from an F-16, they used an over-the-shoulder rocket?

So let me use your example, but change just that:

An over-the-shoulder rocket lands in a facility believed to house military hardware, but instead it wipes out an innocent family taking shelter there.

Is that terrorism?

So let me see if I understand you correctly. If Palestinean forces fire rockets at an Israeli military checkpoint and civilians are killed in the process, then that would not be considered terrorism, right? Those civilians would be considered "collateral damage" since the target was of military nature? Am I understanding you correctly?


Or are you instead saying this:

Any Palestinean attack on Israelis is terrorism because Palestineans are automatically terrorists, but any Israeli attack on Palestineans is NOT terrorism because Israelis are not terrorists. Is this more in line with what you are trying to say?

A couple more examples I'm unsure about:

If the attackers detonate a bomb next to a naval ship, thus sinking the ship, and no civilians are killed, is that terrorism?


What if a politician is the target, they bomb his civilian residence to kill him and in the process 50 other civilians are also killed. Is this terrorism?

Terrorist: Definition - :explode:Bwhahahahahahaha!!!!!

Nationality and religion were used in the context of what is going on currently in the Middle East. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, I think you understand just fine, let's not play dumb. Yes, Palestinian forces firing on an Israeli military checkpoint or an armored convoy with the intent of killing Israeli soldiers only: not terrorism. If civilians are in the vicinity (unbeknownst to the Palestinian militants) and get killed in the crossfire, not terrorism. It ain't pretty. It doesn't make it fine. But it's not terrorism. It does not "terrorize", because civilians are not being intentionally and indiscriminately targeted. If civilians are being intentionally targeted, but NOT indiscriminately (i.e. specific non-combatants are targeted), that is murder. Morally reprehensible, but still not at the lowest and most depraved level of a terrorist attack. I'm trying to be even-handed and not assign nationality or religion to specific tactics. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that both strategically and tactically Hamas is a terrorist outfit in its heart and in its soul. And interestingly, I am sure they would not deny it. They relish the blowing to bits of innocent children and families. The more, the better. I never said all Palestinians are terrorists. That's just you throwing out the race card when you have no other card to play, typical ploy on your part.

To define something based solely on action and not on "thought" was a loaded and un-educated way for you to pose the question. All criminal jurisprudence is based on both action endpoint AS WELL AS the thought process and intent of the perpetrator. INTENT is the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter. It's also the difference between misdemeanor assault and aggravated assault.

:popcorn: