It's official: Jewish people cannot be terrorists

[Aladdin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1560147,00.html

You have laugh, really...

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

there is no such thing as terrorism as long as it happens to "them", didn't you know that?

[Teh_Gerbil]

Duh, he isn't a terrorists because he is Israeli.

They are imune to international laws, didn't you notice? They've only broke them about a few million times.

[Man Of Kent]

Actually they are right, he isn't a terrorist.

The wrong judgement was for the case involving the actions of individual arabs, not this case.

[Aladdin]

How is a Palestinian distraught by the occupation of his country by Israelis who goes and shoots dead several civilians a terrorist, but an Israeli distraught by the partial withdrawal of his country who goes and shoots dead several civilians is not?

It's either both, or neither surely. :confused:

[klintock]

He wasn't a terrorist because the court found no evidence he was in a "group" one guy isn't a terrorist, you have to be in an organisation.

Seems fair enough to me. Fred West wasn't a terrorist either. Good luck getting the Uk govt to pay out for his victims families.

The fuck up is with claiming that the other lot were terrorists.

[Aladdin]

He wasn't a terrorist because the court found no evidence he was in a "group" one guy isn't a terrorist, you have to be in an organisation.

Seems fair enough to me. Fred West wasn't a terrorist either. Good luck getting the Uk govt to pay out for his victims families.

The fuck up is with claiming that the other lot were terrorists. Yes, quite. Given that the Israelis are quick to deem anyone a "terrorist", from peaceful demonstrators to 9-year-old boys who throw pebbles at armoured vehicles...

[Man Of Kent]

How is a Palestinian distraught by the occupation of his country by Israelis who goes and shoots dead several civilians a terrorist, but an Israeli distraught by the partial withdrawal of his country who goes and shoots dead several civilians is not?

It's either both, or neither surely. :confused:

Isn't that what I said?

Neither are terrorists, unless they are part of an organisation looking to get political change through violence...

[Aladdin]

Oh okay, I get you now...

[Toadborg]

What constitutes an 'organisation' though?

It may well be that the London bombers were not part of any larger organisation, they just planned informally between themselves....

I would still say they were terrorists though..........

[Toadborg]

The more pertinent point is that their definition is of 'organisations hostile to Israel' i.e. this seems to indicate an organisation hostile to Palestinians that attacked them could not be classed terrorists........

[wheresmyplacebo]

like the oklahoma bomber was a lone man (i believe) he was a terroist as he set out to put blame on islamic hardcore lot

[Aladdin]

The more pertinent point is that their definition is of 'organisations hostile to Israel' i.e. this seems to indicate an organisation hostile to Palestinians that attacked them could not be classed terrorists........ That's a very good point...