As some people don't seem to realise, the following term is unacceptable...

Any kind of term that degrades another's belief and/or race should not be allowed.

 

Darth_Ignant, thanks for the reminder. I agree the term is completely unacceptable.

 

Freedoms in this country (the US) have been disappearing quickly since 9/11.

Racist insults should not be allowed, so I'm glad to see the moderators in agreement there.

However, I do want to say this: I don't think its a problem to warn/ban people for comments about killing US troops/the president/etc... IF the reverse is true, and comments about killing people from the middle east are treated in a similar manner. That said, I think there is at least some difference between saying "Arabs" and "terrorists", although I'm not sure myself how far that distinction can and should be made.

 

If people can rant about killing terrorists, people should be free to rant about killing US troops.

If people can rant about killing Arabs/Muslims, people should be free to rant about killing US civilians.

To be fair, I don't think I've seen anyone 'get away with' advocating/glorifying the murder of civilians.

Given that it's illegal to threaten to kill the US President in the States, I can understand why such threats would be edited.

 

If people can rant about killing terrorists, people should be free to rant about killing US troops.

Ummm, no. Terrorists and soldiers are not the same thing.

If people can rant about killing Arabs/Muslims, people should be free to rant about killing US civilians.

Neither is allowed.

 

Murderers sanctioned by religion vs murderers sanctioned by a state. Both are acting outside of international law and the Geneva Convention: both groups are criminals. I see very little difference.

Next time I see blowhards talking about exterminating terrorists I will promote the killing of US troops to a similar extent. Ban me if you will.

 

Ummm, no. Terrorists and soldiers are not the same thing.

You're correct - depending on whether we agree or not with the ideology and goals of the terrorist. If we agree and support them, we will call them freedom-fighters.

Much like what happened with the mujahidin during the 80's in Afghanistan, they are no longer freedom fighters, they're scummy terrorists now.

So if terrorists and soldiers are not the same thing, can we insult the Iraqi troops? - well, probably not, because they are our friends now. But I'd like to insult them because they seem like a bunch of wimps to me.

So... if the British Empire considered the American revolutionaries to be terrorists, can we insult the American revolutionaries?

 

Murderers sanctioned by religion vs murderers sanctioned by a state. Both are acting outside of international law and the Geneva Convention: both groups are criminals. I see very little difference.

Next time I see blowhards talking about exterminating terrorists I will promote the killing of US troops to a similar extent. Ban me if you will.

and

You're correct - depending on whether we agree or not with the ideology and goals of the terrorist. If we agree and support them, we will call them freedom-fighters.

Much like what happened with the mujahidin during the 80's in Afghanistan, they are no longer freedom fighters, they're scummy terrorists now.

So if terrorists and soldiers are not the same thing, can we insult the Iraqi troops? - well, probably not, because they are our friends now. But I'd like to insult them because they seem like a bunch of wimps to me.

Anyone fighting out of properly marked uniforms or who commit atrocities are not subject to Geneva Conventions.

Hence, US soldiers are sanctioned under the GC and the terrorists are not.

 

Anyone fighting out of properly marked uniforms or who commit atrocities are not subject to Geneva Conventions.

Hence, US soldiers are sanctioned under the GC and the terrorists are not.








I shall now return to my poop jokes, as it would sicken me to have to highlight the atrocities US soldiers are forced to commit (although some do so willingly). I really wished you cared enough about your soldiers to understand the nature of war, and the effect of war on them.

The smell of hypocrisy is so sickening, I have to go to the Fecal Force now.

(Tubgirl, where are you?)

 

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

We don't need to highlight atrocities because both sides have done so. Will continue to do so. Atrocities happen in combat situations past, present and in the future.

 

I used the term scarfhead in Mastadge's thread and I apologize to any one I offended, terrorism is a real pet peave of mine and sometimes I lash out at certain people be it wrong or right but I'm sorry to anyone I offended. If the mods feel I should be banned, then ban me as I deserve it. Again my apologies to anyone I offended.

 

Make me a mod so I can lock this thread.

¤Night

 

Errant_Venture, this all started with the, in my opinion, valid questions raised by ask_the_younglings.

Seeing that it has not been established whether ranting about killing terrorists is or is not allowed, the conversation steered towards the definition of terrorist / freedom fighter / soldier / Geneva Conventions / atrocities.

My question concerning the British Empire's classification of American revolutionaries as terrorists, which therefore should allow us to rant about killing American revolutionaries, remains unanswered.

As a child growing up during Apartheid in South Africa, I was taught by my teachers, government and church that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. So surely you can understand my skepticism when people say that terrorists are bad, and that there's no need to be concerned if people rant about killing them.

(And I obviously have nothing better to do).

 

Raven promote Night plz. kthx.

I don't see how the defination of "soldier" matters in this discussion because the defination is pretty much recognized in all parts of the world as one who serves in a country's armed forces. I'm not going to say the Geneve convention as not all countries have agreed to the GC. Any "terrorist" organization does not contain legally recognized soldiers as they are not a country. And I believe the world recognized defination of terrorist is one who opposes a legit government or commits acts of violence for the hell of it.

And this is really beginning to just go in circles and/or get off topic of the original thing and honostly I think discussion of what is a soldier or terrorist or [insert anything else here] belongs in the Senate. This was originally "raghead" and that has been answered.

 

Are people allowed to call me limey? I don't mind it - it makes me laugh.



EDIT: Locked. Guess I won't get an answer. Didn't think it was worth a separate thread.

 

dp4m was the one who chose to define soldier.

And I believe the world recognized defination of terrorist is one who opposes a legit government or commits acts of violence for the hell of it.
Yes, sadly, that is what I was told about Mandela, and that apartheid South Africa was a legit government.

And this is really beginning to just go in circles and/or get off topic of the original thing and honostly I think discussion of what is a soldier or terrorist or [insert anything else here] belongs in the Senate.
I agree, but we have yet to establish whether ranting on about killing terrorists is or is not allowed.

I am typing in English right?