What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

And you are choosing a very select group of interpretations, rather than the widest held interpretation. Why do you ignore the larger group telling you what they hold Islam to be, and insist on using what more radical elements say as well as detractors of Islam itself? Yes, when dealing with militant muslim fundamentalists, just as it is important to understand what Xian and Jewish militant fundamentalists say when we are discussing them. The problem is that you equate the militant fundamentalists with the majority of Islam and indeed help propagate their claims that they embody true Islam. 1) Evidence for this claim. I don't remember Khomeini ever making such a statement.
2) While he may CLAIM to be reading it literally, that's an easy claim to make and he might not be. How would you know as you have already admitted you can't interpret it literally and rely on others to do so?
3) The fact that many did not follow Khomeini and do not now, and in fact wars were fought between his followers and others directly inside of Iran, not to mention outside of it, sort of squashes your claim that his reading is thought "literal" by muslims in general. I mean some do but not all or the majority. Its like me saying to you the Pope tells me what the Bible literally says so I know what Xians and you as a Xian must believe. Yes it would. Once you calm down and understand that there are different interpretations you can stop villifying Islam in such a broad sense and deal with the activities of militant Islamic fundamentalists in specific. That would allow you and others like you to build sound policies which aid moderate muslims rather than alienate them and so increase recruitment to the more radical elements. You are out of touch with reality. While Israel has been the victim of terrorism, so have the Palestinians and others in the region. There really are such thing as Zionist terrorist groups who kill muslims. In fact they set the trend before we had Islamic terrorists.In any case the real victims in the region are the people who were disenfranchised by the creation of Israel, and then forced to live under an occupation for decades (and still do so). The idea that we (and they) should envision Israel as some benign put upon entity whose demands should be met at all costs is an absurdist hypocrisy that no one is going to swallow... except diehard Israeli apologists in the US and Israel.Its simply not going to happen and the sooner you wake up and deal with the reality on the ground the better. Your kind of attitude is what is perpetuating the problem.Witness the current conflict in Lebanon. Hezbollah was no doubt the instigator, but they originally attacked only military personnel and even as this war has escalated to civilian populations have killed a total of 74 people, the majority (44) being soldiers. On the flipside Israel "responded" to Hezbollah by initially targeting civilian infrastructure, and continues to pummel civilians despite increasing numbers of outrageous tragedies that would have already resulted in UN condemnation except for US's veto power. Israel has killed 550 people, 500 being civilians.That you could look at such stats and then claim that people should feel Israel is innocent and blame Hezbollah and the Lebanese as the CAUSE of the ongoing misery is bizarre on its face.Israel needs to react in ways that recognizes the FACT that it is going to be neighbors with these people after the fighting is over. All this does is create new generations of people with legitimate problems with the state of Israel. I will plug my posts, numbers 201 and 203. There I asked you to provide evidence for your claims regarding Israel. If you don't understand its history, you can't tell others how they should view it or its policies. The second post addresses mr hanson's views, or at least your conclusions drawn from his remarks.And by the way Judaism has nothing to do with Israel. Israel is a nation. While it was created and operated by a radical militant wing of Jewish fundamentalism, and enjoys the support of many within the Jewish community, it is not synonymous with the religion nor approved of by all Jews. There are large numbers who feel its institution was against the principles of Judaism, or just plain an impractical ideological driven plan. Thus being anti Israel is not synonymous with being anti Jewish at all.Further, being critical of its policies is not synonymous with being anti Israel or anti Jewish. Israeli Jews have been openly critical of its policies. Like any nation, it will have some diversity of opinion even among its supporters.Thus heaping such condemnations on its critics, or additionally claiming that they must be supporting terrorist agendas, is pretty unrealistic. If peace is your true aim then perhaps you ought to be starting with questions of who wants it and under what conditions, and finding those that are willing to compromise (and you be willing to compromise) to find acceptable solutions, rather then claiming everyone needs to bow down to Israel.Edited by holmes, : put in someEdited by holmes, : putting in the cause

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

My little one is keeping me up tonight so I have some time to respond.'They' are not here participating in this forum Faith. I am here challanging YOUR ideas and positions. If you now have retreated to the position that only the minority of Moslems who are extremists take the religious imperialistic view of the Koran then there is no more disagreement. Yet you still frame your response as if you are talking to a polar adversary.I have already said that I DO THINK there is a problem within Islam regarding those who have taken an extremist view of the Koran. Just as my take on the Bible does not jive with a literal interpretation, it can be shown that their view IS IN FACT not a valid literal interpretation but you are right that I am not going to be able to get an audience with Khomeini to change his mind about it. It is unfortunate that people with these views are in a position of power.But now we are shifted from many of your original claims. If the ideology you proclaim that allows the terroists to be 'self-breeding' is in fact a minority extremist view, then your black-and-white version of events specifically fails when met with reality just like your opponents have been telling you. You may just have to realize that the situation IS ACTUALLY complicated and cannot be simplified by just saying that the ideology is the sole source of terrorism. What you don't seem to understand is that the only difference between our views is that you give Israel a free pass on their actions which amount to terrorism. I agree that terrorism is "THE cause of the problems". We DO need to stop the terrorism and that means ALSO stopping Israel's state sancioned terrorism. You don't achieve moral superiority for indescriminant bombing of civilian targets just because you toss a bunch of leaflets around. Not to mention the other actions taken by Israel in the past half centry. You seem to take the position though that they are ALWAYS right. Even when they are "wrong" they is always the excuse that their hand was forced by the fanatical tactics of their agressors. Israel can do no wrong in your eyes and therefore your definition of terrorism will forever be skewed by you fervent pro-Israel bias. It doesn't sound like this is necessary anymore according to this last post of yours. You seem to be continuing to backpedal. You tell me. Do you still hold that religious imperialism is an inherently valid interpretation and that such is a majority interpretation? Based on this last post, I can only assume that you communicated your position unclearly or I misinterpreted it to think that you held a stronger view of the role of ideology in terrorism that I thought you did. What is your position exactly?

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

For the most part, terrorists are desparate people with serious grievances.The current way of dealing with terrorists only increases grievances and raises the degree of desperation. It creates more agrieved people, and causes more people to become desparate. The current US foreign policy is the best recruiting tool for terrorism that there has ever been. It's a them against us mentality.When those that we consider our peers have grievances against us, we address those grievances and come to some sort of negotiated settlement. When those that we consider inferior have grievances against us, we initially ignore them. And if they then act on their own to address the grievances, we declare them terrorists and set about killing them off.It's good old fashioned racism and bigotry. As a "Christian" nation, our policies display the "righteous" hatred, "righteous" bigotry, "righteous" racism that comes from fundamentalism. If we were truly Christian, we would be finding better ways of dealing with agrieved people.

Indeed. I think it is generally also true that they see no way of their grievances being addressed without using terrorism - the diplomatic or political route has been exhausted (or in some cases does not even get started) and convential military conflict is a non-starter.Whatever you may think of their aims and methods it seems almost certain to me that without the actions of the Provisional IRA from the late '60s onwards the non-loyalist community in Northern Ireland would still be being denied many civil rights such as equal housing and employment rights, let alone any discussion of their political aspirations.A strange quirk of the situation in Northern Ireland is that the advent of Republican terrorism led to the creation of Loyalist terrorist movements. These claimed to be protecting their communities from the IRA terrorists and it led to a brutal cycle of attacks and killing. Although the situation is by no means perfect and a peaceful outcome is by no means guaranteed the best - indeed to date only - solution to the Irish problems has been negotiations aimed at producing a solution which addresses the grievances and fears of all sides. The terrorists were at least indirectly involved in these negotiations. Actually, the negotiations are pretty meaningless if they aren't in my opinion.Similarly without the PLO actions of the '60s onwards nobody of any political significance would have paid any interest at all to their plight. I was going to say "and Israel would still be free to treat them as second class citizens" - but the sad truth is that (and much worse - I think Israel treats the Palestinians as sub-humans) is still happening.People like Faith seem to regard terrorism as a root cause of problems - I regard it as a symptom (although it can also be regarded as a secondary cause of subsequent problems which can take on a life of their own).

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Well why on earth would there be a question? We are talking about Muslim terrorism and this is where Muslim terrorism comes from. Which is what we are dealing with when we are dealing with terrorism. I haven't said a thing about anything but the source of terrorism in this post. I haven't taken a guess at how many Muslims share their reading of the Koran. The point I am making is that their reading of it is the cause of terrorism. EVIDENCE COMING UP: I've quoted it before here more than once I think. Here it is again:

quote:

---

Why do you Mullahs only go after the ordinances of prayer and fasting?

​

Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing?

​

Quran says; kill, imprison!

​

Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy?

​

Mercy is against God.

​

Mehrab (3) means the place of war, the place of fighting. Out of the mehrabs, wars should proceed, Just as all the wars of Islam used to proceeded out of the mehrabs.

​

The prophet has [had] sword to kill people..

​

Our [Holy] Imams were quite military men. All of them were warriors. They used to wield swords; they used to kill people.

​

We need a Khalifa who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people
In the same way that the messenger of God used to chop hands, cut throats, and stone people.

​

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm

---

That was my very point in that post. It does not MATTER what is the correct or literal interpretation in this absolute sense all you ivory tower types keep talking about, all that matters in understanding and dealing with terrorism is that this is how the fundamentalists read it; and no amount of argument trying to prove their reading wrong is going to convince them, because they are serious students of the Koran too. You are missing the whole point. I said nothing about "Muslims in general." I am talking about the source of terrorism in the Koran (and other Muslim sources for that matter are made use of too). How many share the reading I don't know. I suppose many are just followers who don't really know the Koran but trust in their leaders.BUT it doesn't take many who have this reading of the Koran to terrorize and intimidate the many who may or may not share it. Well, I happen to disagree with this analysis. I am very aware that many Muslims hold to a nonliteral interpretation of Islam. I am also aware that they are intimidated into silence by the literalists. But denying that the source of terrorism IS in the fundamentalist reading of the Koran is just putting on blinders, it's not aiding anyone. It keeps the whole thing a mystery, perpetuates a lie about the peaceful nature of Islam. You cannot claim that the peaceful interpretations are correct when you see what Khomeini says above. And his reading is obviously shared by the Bin Ladens and the killers of 9/11 and other Muslim terrorists all over the world.No way you are going to convince the radicals that the liberal readings are correct. It is academic whether in fact they are or arent correct.Your policy is of appeasement and whitewashing, the big big mistake that is allowing terrorism to proliferate. How does pointing out the violent interpretations of the Koran radicalize Muslims? That is absolute nonsense. If it isn't understood that we are talking about an authoritative dogma that fuels terrorism there is NO solution to this problem. You appease and appease and appease and mollify and pacify and euphemize and equivocate while they regroup their forces. This has happened over and over and over again against Israel. The moderates HAVE NO POWER. The power is in the hands of the radicals BECAUSE THEY ARE KILLERS and they intimidate the others. There is no way to deal with such inspired fanatics EXCEPT BY FORCE. But you want to tie the hands of Israel in that attempt. This is insanity. This is absolutely irrelevant to the current situation. It is you who are out of touch with reality. This is an ivory tower kind of thought. The current terrorists are driven by something WAY bigger than the current political situation, and if this is not recognized and met head-on it's only going to keep growing, aided and abetted by YOUR kind of silly misinterpretation of the situation. Well, there's the suicidal party line. What can I say. Utter insanity. Keep it up and we'll be in World War III. Israel is the victim in this. If you cannot see this we are all in trouble. Crazy false analylsis. Absolute denial of the ideological source of the terrorism. Blindness. Holmes, I often find your posts to be nearly impossible to read and get through. Sorry, that's just a fact. And I'm usually dealing with a dozen other posters so if I don't get to yours, sorry, but it's just sometimes beyond me. You are only saying what they are all saying anyway and all I do is repeat myself and slogging through the same old same old only to repeat myself isn't fun. Why do you bring in so many irrelevancies? Nobody has mentioned Judaism. Your posts ramble on and on holmes and are very hard to deal with sometimes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm trying to get off that because it has always been a red herring. I'm interested in what fuels terrorism. It is how the fundamentalists read the Koran. My opinion of whether they are correct or not is a side issue I am now trying to avoid. Yes I think from my casual experience of it that it's obvious that the literal reading of the koran is quite valid, and that the liberal readings require mental acrobatics, and certainly this is how the radicals read it. My reading it this way is irrelevant. Their reading it this way is crucial. But what the extremists think is what fuels terrorism so it is the meat of the topic and what I think is irrelevant. You all kept trying to pin me to the wall about how I read the Koran as if it meant something, and I finally got smart and now am focusing on what's important as my reading is absolutely irrelevant. You do not think that the fact that terrorism originates in the doctrines of Islam is relevant. I am saying it is crucially important. Therefore you are a "polar adversary" on this point I guess. This is all that has ever mattered in the discussion. All the nonsense about what I think has been a fat red herring. You are missing the entire point. The terrorism is caused by the extremist reading. If this is not faced there is no way to deal with terrorism. It does not matter that others read it differently when they are under the thumb of the terrorists and have no power to overthrow them. Oh good grief. Let me say it again. Stop the terrorism, which is fundamentally ideology-driven, stop the terrorism and you stop the main problem. THEN you can deal with the other grievances that are the complicated part. But if you do not face the ideological source of the terrorism, if you refuse to recognize the lies and deception involved in this thing, then there is no hope of ever getting to any point of negotiating about the complicated elements. Well here we go straight down to the usual crashing impasse. Israel's actions are necessary self defense against duplicitous terrorism. INsanity. I agree with Hanson. Nobody can tell the difference any more between the necessary defensive actions of a rational sovereign state and the fanatical ideology-driven murderers of Islam. Blah blah blah blah blah. They are not being indescriminatn. You are now just spouting the terrorist propaganda. The whole thing has been staged by the terrorists. You just refuse to face it. No, I have said they no doubt do many things wrong, but I know that their overall motivations are self defense against an insane ideology that wants them dead. That is true. Not forced, but the only sane response from time to time to keep their irrational enemies from increasing their terrorist operations against them. Blah blah blah. I am biased on the side of the victim, who is also the rational one. What you are calling backpedaling was simply trying to get you all off this irrelevant bit about how I read the Koran. Where did the word "majority" come from? Yes I believe it is inherently valid but what I believe is not important. I also believe that this reading of Islam has been acted upon many many times in the past starting with Mohammed himself and that to ignore it and insist that YOUR reading is correct is just to give them carte blanche to continue their manipulations until they have the power to bring on the next war. THEY ARE THE NAZIS in this drama. Putting Israel in that role is utterly insane. I have no idea how you get this out of anything I've said. Once again, the point is that what I think is irrelevant. What the fundamentalists think is what is bringing the world to its knees to get its head chopped off.Obviously there is nothing more to say. We've reached the usual impasse.

Most of the worldwide terrorism is Islamic.
Not limited to Islam but most is.
I don't know whether they can topple the US or not. Depends. But right now the main focus is the Middle East.
Why are you always bringing in irrelevancies? Yes there are other dangers in the world. More irrelevancies. Oh well. Poor you. More irrelevancies. I don't care whether it covers all of Islam or not. It may be confined to a mere 1%. The numbers are irrelevant. The point is only that is has power and the current analyses and appeasement policies toward it are deadly suicidal. Gad you are master of irrelevancies, the nonsequitur and the rabbit trail. I have no idea what you are talking about now. Hanson's point was that we are now in a similar position to 1938 when the evil aggressors are being mollified and appeased while their victims are being vilified. What position. I don't think you even knwo what I'm talking about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They aren't trying to take over the world, they only care about their own nation's safety, so who cares about other meanings of the word. Funny you aren't going to get into a semantic argument but then you do. I am not discussing American foreign policy. I am not discussing Iraq. These are irrelevant to the current discussion. It is also irrelevant what kind of democracy Israel is. I'm simply going to try to narrow this discussion. I'm trying to focus on Muslim terrorism as the current aggressors who must be stopped. Everything else is extraneous. This is all irrelevant to the opitn I'm trying to make. I'm claiming that Hizballah and Muslim terrorism in general are primarily ideology driven and until this part is faced none of the other historical factors matter one bit. If you keep explaining away the terrorism on the basis of those factors you will completely miss how it is self-egnerating and will never go away. There are no negotiations that will appease it, because they aim for the complete elimination of Israel and will not accept anything less. You cannot negotiate with such an attitude. All the historical factors you are bringing in are completely irrelevant to the current situation. Focusing on those is only tying the hands of those who need freedom to act to stop the terrorists. Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. Good for us. Because otherwise they would be dead. Good for us. I do not derive their benign intentions from their not having wiped out their neighbors. I am simply pointing to that as evidence that they do not have the imperialist motives you claim. Their operations are ALWAYS specifically aimed to deal with specific terrorist or other aggressions against them. Spencer, Pipes, Christian sources, From Time Immemorial, most of the articles at Front Page magazine, various ex-Muslim websites.Sorry, I just decided that there is no point in rehashing your view of the hsitorical situation. That's just going to take us away from what is important which is the fact that whatever the other aspects of the sitaution the main thing is the ideologically driven intention to eliminate Israel and the refusal ever to recognize it. There is no way to deal with the rest of it until this is stopped.And I see no way to stop this except by force OR my far out impossible hope that people like you would recognize this fact and the whole world would recognize this fact and stop making excuses for the terrorists and support Israel in its self defense efforts instead of screaming against them as if they were the aggressors when they are not.

Why can't you read and interpret it yourself? Do you read the Bible? Do you read the Bible in the original Greek and Aramaic?Do you say the same about the Bible? Are you incapable of interpreting the Bible and have to rely on others who have studied it?The Qur'an is available in several English translations. Like the Bible, you can even read several translations at one time so you can see the variations in translation. One such site, one that has been recommended to you by Holmes several times is The Nobel Qur'an. Have you gone there and read it yet?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let me try this again. Of course I can read it, and have read parts of it for that matter, and I can have my own interpretation, but nobody is going to take my interpretation seriously against the interpretations of those who study the Koran as their life's work. And why should they? So I have to rely on those who have studied it to understand how it is interpreted by Muslims, which is after all the point. My reading of it means nothing.And although I read the Bible for myself, yes of course I rely on those whose calling it is to interpret the Bible. It would be foolish not to.

Terrorist group names, course you see islamic groups there but there are bunch of other ones as well.Course you can also ingnore the place it comes from mostly because on searching a bunch of other websites they pretty much ad the same thing, this one is just a bit more comprehensive.terrorist listAdded by Edit: As an addendum I would also point out the while the Islamic groups seem to have a large number of names, that Islam is the second or third largest religion in the world claiming a huge chunk of people as followers. Thus Islamic terrorism is globally under represented.Edited by Discreet Label, : No reason given.

Do you have a point?

From the impression I am recieve from your posts is that Islam is the progenittor of terrorism. However, demonstratably there are larger and more numeroes and longer lived terrorist groups then the ones that are Islamic.Also demonstratably Islamic fundamentalist readings of their holy textbook can't be the sole reason for terrorism cause of the number of groups that aren't Islamic ideologically driven.Terrorist groups in my opinion arise out of lack of their political needs and wants met course politically this could include socio economic desires. KKK grew because it couldn't maintain its public superiority over black people and in actuality even before the KKK grew out you could construe the way and manner that white people treated black people as terrorism. However, in that context it was a cultural norm so it could be said that the entire Southern population of white folk were terrorists (overgeneraliztion). So it could be then said a behavior is terroist like if it is a violence or bigotry that the a culture does not accept.

Well you are getting the wrong impression from my posts. All you are doing is repeating the party line which I've answered many times already.Current terrorism in the world is massively predominantly Muslim.

Last two replies of yours are answered in this one... If your point is that militant fundamentalists believe they follow the only true literal interpretation of the Quran, that this interpretation promotes violence against all enemies, and that it is likely impossible for us to convince them otherwise then I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. I know I wouldn't.The problem only occurs when you extend commentary to suggest that the terrorists do in fact hold the only true literal interpretation, which is both inaccurate, counterproductive, and insulting. Here is an example... In that quote you explicitly claim that only the terrorists hold the true literal interpretation, your evidence apparently being references to quotes by extremists. That begs the question... do the extremists actually hold the true literal interpretation? Their popularity or threat to competitors does not justify any conclusions regarding that question Why you insist on extending your arguments that far is not clear.On the question of correct interpretations I am left puzzled why you keep acting as if I am trying to whitewash Islam. Why would I care? If the Quran said people should kill others and take over the world I'd be more than happy to point that out. It is not my religion, and peaceful or not in intent it still undercuts many of my own beliefs and so is an antagonist to me personally. Interestingly enough I was pointing out the mistake of supporting Islamic militants back when Republicans (like Reagan and Bush Sr) were saying how wonderful they were (to fight atheism) and trained them in tactics they are using against us today.I think that's a key point here. I recognized the threat posed by Islamic militants back when many Republicans thought they were allies and downplayed their explicitly violent rhetoric as somehow helpful to us. Their threat remains the same today, and I still criticize them as I did in the past. I'm just not willing to make statements that are not factually true about Islam because I don't need to in order to address the threat. Okay, there are some problems. First of all he appears to be addressing pacifism mentioned directly within the Quran and that it is a popular subject among mullahs, which means Islam is not devoid of such concepts. He is indicating that there are other verses and history which allow for violent action, and in the full quote is shown to be discussing how it is to be applied to enemies, most specifically criminals. This reads exactly like Xian fundies who argue with pacifists among their ranks that war and executions are compatible with Xianity.Second, if it is true he said this and meant it as a call to change Islam into an aggressive forward moving worldwide violent campaign (Quran says kill and imprison, rather than Quran says kill and imprison those who have transgressed against you) it does not suggest why his reading should be considered literal.Third, this is trusting translation to a source that is less than unbiased. I have no idea if this is actually attributable to him or is an accurate translation. Looking over the site I found pages like this and this which contain gross factual errors and clearly biased commentary with no sources to back them up.You repeatedly criticized me for making comments without backing them up... where are their sources? On that note...I tried to discuss the divergent causes for terrorism against Israel and the US based on the history of Israel. You simply asserted my claims were false. I then repeated my version and challenged you to prove that that your version of Israeli history and roots of violence their are accurate using sources.If your criticisms are good enough for me they are good enough for you. Find factual sources to back up your whitewashed version of Israeli history or admit you are blowing smoke on the issue. I already proved you wrong in the other thread and I can do so again.Like I said, you appear to be in such denial you are unwilling to admit zionists murdered an Israeli PM to disrail a peace plan that was showing progress. Even Israelis are straightforward that this occured. What appeasement? Please point this out. I was against the Mujhadeen when Reagan and Bush supported them with US tax dollars. I was against the Taliban when Bush and Cheney were making deals with them. I fully agreed with a war in Afghanistan except in how it has been carried out which is NOT TO COMPLETION.I was against the war in Iraq primarily because it weakened our position against AQ by diverting resources and increased the power of fundamentalists, particularly Iranian supported fundamentalists which you seem to have a problem with yourself. Since we did go to war I am hoping something good can come out of it for the Iraqi people (after all I was against our support for Saddam in the first place) and I don't think we should pull our troops out until a stable gov't is achieved.Thus you can't peg me as some pacifist liberal, and especially not as an appeaser. If you have some support for that claim then give it. Otherwise take it back. It doesn't. Repeatedly suggesting violent interpretations are the correct literal interpretation alienates potential allies and leads to poor resolution of the conflicts we are facing.You also cannot win this by claiming force must be used and Israel is blameless. While force will likely be necessary there must be boundaries on that force. All possible action is not practical and indeed is not legal. Israel has crossed those lines repeatedly. Whether you want to admit it or not they are STILL in violation of multiple UN resolutions dating back years, and have broken int'l law repeatedly in the Lebanese conflict. I pointed out how it is driven by more than just politics and religious ideology, and by rather practical/personal issues. The indiscriminate nature of Israeli responses, and policies of collective punishment (which I PROVED to you exist) lead to real anger and legitimate motivation for retaliation. How will they kill me? ??? Israel is not the victim when it kills 10 times more innocent people than its attackers, and in addition has targeted civilian infrastructure which acts as collective punishment.It was certainly provoked. Its response has changed its position from victim to victimizer, in the same vein that if somebody beat up your friend you don't get to claim victim status when you proceed to blow up the attackers entire neighborhood killing many innocent families in the process.It is the worst form of vigilantism, and does not acknowledge the fact that they will have to live next to these people they just injured for years to come.Edited by AdminFaith, : to correct URL and to eliminate repeating portions of the post.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)