And the winner is

[LittleGrizzly]

If you read through my post I only refer to them as 'soldiers so to speak' and I did actually refer to them as terrorists near the start of my post. I will take it you agree with the jist of the post and just have a problem with how I defined the two men.

For me terrorists or soldiers makes very little difference, both capable of great evil and both capable of fighting for a good cause.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you read through my post I only refer to them as 'soldiers so to speak' and I did actually refer to them as terrorists near the start of my post. I will take it you agree with the jist of the post and just have a problem with how I defined the two men.

For me terrorists or soldiers makes very little difference, both capable of great evil and both capable of fighting for a good cause.

The Geneva Convention provides for a precise definition of "soldier" - these guys don't fit it.

OK - so this one was a soldier, next they'll be attacking Cadets (children in military uniform) like the ProVo's did. A 15 year old boy lost a hand and an eye about ten year ago when he turned on a booby trapped torch left outside his Cadet Hut - that literally could have been me.

This will just cause the persecution of Muslims in Britain, it will accomplish nothing else. These idiots don't seem to get it, the more they do the longer we stay.

[rvg]

For me terrorists or soldiers makes very little difference, both capable of great evil and both capable of fighting for a good cause.

Yeah, they're practically one and the same. That soldier must have slept through Decapitation 101 during basic training.

[LittleGrizzly]

The Geneva Convention provides for a precise definition of "soldier" - these guys don't fit it.
............................................................................

So we all agree with how I defined them then... Which was as terrorists

What I don't understand is why you are both so eager to point out I was right in this point?

.................................................
Yeah, they're practically one and the same.
...............................................

I will take your sarcasm as disagreement. So I suppose you would say the worst soldiers in the Nazi regime and under Imperial Japan were far more morally acceptable than a terrorist like Nelson Mandela?

If you do not agree surely your sarcasm was misplaced in the first place?

.................................................................
OK - so this one was a soldier, next they'll be attacking Cadets (children in military uniform) like the ProVo's did. A 15 year old boy lost a hand and an eye about ten year ago when he turned on a booby trapped torch left outside his Cadet Hut - that literally could have been me.
.................................................................

So the reason terrorists attacking soldiers is unacceptable is because there is an inevitable slipperly slope that will follow of attacking children playing dress up?

Surely there is an equal risk of our own soldiers falling down a similar slipperly slope which ends in them attacking children playing dress up?

For years I remember the arguments raging about terrorists and one of the main problems people had was their targeting of innocent civilians. I was just curios as to whether people as the arguments went prefer the terrorists to target the military rather than civilians... that is after all what gave us our morale edge.

These two men, I will call them terrorists again to soothe some of our angrier board members, targeted a soldier and left the civilians in the area well alone, it was a (from what I can tell) deliberate attack on a soldier which resulted in no civilian casualties. Isn't this what everyone has been asking for from the terrorists?

[rvg]

I will take your sarcasm as disagreement. So I suppose you would say the worst soldiers in the Nazi regime and under Imperial Japan were far more morally acceptable than a terrorist like Nelson Mandela?

Oh, my bad. That guy *does* look a bit like Mandela, you're right. As for that soldier, he must have been a Nazi then. He couldn't have been an Imperial Japanese, otherwise he would have chopped up his attackers with his mighty katana.

The headline should read: "Nelson Mandela beheads a Nazi war criminal." Brilliant.

[LittleGrizzly]

I made this comment

For me terrorists or soldiers makes very little difference, both capable of great evil and both capable of fighting for a good cause.

You then made a sarcastic remark as if my comment was somehow incorrect or wrong. Now you seem to be trying to make my comment about this event and this event only.

If these kind of events make you too emotional and unable to think rationally you should probably avoid commenting on them until you calm down.

[rvg]

Now you seem to be trying to make my comment about this event and this event only.

What do you expect? You're making a comment in a specific thread, and I'm replying to it within the framework of the thread. Sounds logical to me.

If these kind of events make you too emotional and unable to think rationally you should probably avoid commenting on them until you calm down.

Oh, I'm quite calm. I didn't Godwin this thread, you did.

[LittleGrizzly]

What do you expect? You're making a comment in a specific thread, and I'm replying to it within the framework of the thread. Sounds logical to me.
...................................................................

The definition of a word I used was being discussed, so clearly the discussion had moved on at that point.

Basically you misinterpreted a post and then tried to by funny by using sarcasm... maybe taking time to understand what people are saying will save you from future embarrassment.

...........................................
Oh, I'm quite calm. I didn't Godwin this thread, you did.
...........................................

Okay then if that is such a problem replace 'the worst soldiers in the Nazi regime' with the worst soldiers in any other particularly bad regime through history and the point you tried to sarcastically make is still patently false.

[Montmorency]

Wait, what's the point of sacrificing 2 for 1?