Pointless Thread

[KulrathKnight]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original research?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Judging by the brackets I would say it's a Wikipedia entry.

[Sagemaster]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original research?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

[Willthomjr]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original research?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Wiki I would not spend all that time putting that into a post lol

[loop-s-pool]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

[BlackJester]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

"But adding words is boring"

[JaCe BeLeReN]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

"But adding words is boring"

Any hints on what the hidden post is?













Also












This












Helps












If












You













Want











A










Long












Post.











😜

[Guypocolypse]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

"But adding words is boring"

Any hints on what the hidden post is?













Also












This












Helps












If












You













Want











A










Long












Post.











😜

[Clearmario]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

"But adding words is boring"

Any hints on what the hidden post is?













Also












This












Helps












If












You













Want











A










Long












Post.











😜

Since
I'm
Posting
Here
Again
How is
Everybody
.
.
.

[darkarts981]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

"But adding words is boring"

Any hints on what the hidden post is?













Also












This












Helps












If












You













Want











A










Long












Post.











😜

Since
I'm
Posting
Here
Again
How is
Everybody
.
.
.

I have decided to copy And paste Prophylaxis' "Evolving Precons: Dark Sacrifice"! So, here it is!

February 18, 2012, 06:00:54 AM
Dark Sacrifice - From flashback parlor to human sacrifice

Welcome to the second deck we’re building on “Evolving Precons”! You guys voted on Dark Sacrifice, a scary white and black deck that focuses on sacrificing Humans. Mmm, tasty. There are a couple of cards in Innistrad that benefit from creatures dying, and Dark Ascension ups the notch.

Let’s see the decklist:

Dark Sacrifice v.1.0
Lands
1 Haunted Fengraf
12 Plains
11 Swamp
Creatures
1 Champion of the Parish
1 Disciple of Griselbrand
2 Doomed Traveler
2 Elder Cathar
2 Elguad Inquisitor
3 Falkenrath Torturer
1 Fiend of the Shadows
2 Galvanic Juggernaut
1 Mausoleum Guard
1 Selfless Cathar
1 Skirsdag Flayer
2 Unruly Mob
2 Village Cannibals
1 Wakedancer
Other Spells
2 Altar’s Reap
1 Avacyn’s Collar
2 Death’s Caress
1 Demonmail Hauberk
3 Gather the Townsfolk
1 Gravepurge
1 Lingering Souls
2 Night Terrors
1 Unburial Rites

At first glance, here are some of my thoughts.

I think it’s interesting that the Haunted Fengraf was put there. A nonbasic land that helps with our plans? Yes, please!

b. Champion of the Parish provides both a blessing and a dilemma. A blessing because he is strong and will win games for us. A dilemma because he costs like $4 right now. I think that he can be easily acquired (event deck, Innistrad rare) but I may end up cutting him.

c. The deck looks fun to play. I can’t wait to sacrifice humans to put +1/+1 counters on my creatures, destroy opposing creatures, and grind out that incremental advantage.

d. There are a lot of obvious inclusions to the deck that we’ll be adding.

So yeah; here are my results and the improvements that follow.

Game 1 - R/U Flashback

He gets out an early Delver of Secrets, but he doesn’t transform it. My first turn play is a Lingering Souls. I soon attack with them, and he trades with one using his flipped Delver. I then try a Wakedancer with morbid. I attack, then he goes down to 16. He soon plays a Beguiler of Wills, and with all of my low-power creatures, I know I’m in for a rough time.

I control my board, however, by casting a Galvanic Juggernaut and equipping a Demonmail Hauberk to it. Sacrificing excess creatures seems good in this deck. He tries to go aggro, with a Runechanter’s Pike equipped Delver. I charge with my 9/7 Juggernaut, then Death’s Caress the Delver to untap the ‘naut. His Beguiler ends up chumping my Juggernaut and dying. He then resigns, having no way to kill the ‘naut.

1-0 (1-0)

Game 2 - Valadin’s Neverending Depression

I get out a quick Unruly Mob with some Falkenrath Torturer)s to back it up. He gets out some morbid and Birthing Pod. He makes a synergistic play:

sac Ulvenwald Bear, play Undying Evil.
Get out Festerhide Boar, enters battlefield as a 5/5, bear comes back with +1/+1 counter, make the Boar 7/7.

Yeah.

Wait. I manage to get my Mob to 5/5, and then I luck out a Skirsdag Flayer. He Tragic Slips the Flayer (insert mad symbol), then attacks with his two Boars (one 7/7, one 5/5). I manage to trade with the 7/7 boar, but he still deals 5 scary damage to me with his other Boar and pods it into a Vorapede.

Me? All I manage to do is Unburial Rites the Flayer. He then Tragic Slips the Flayer again (still inserts mad symbol). I concede.

1-1 (1-1)

Game 3 - Wally’s Green/Black Infect

My opponent starts the game off mana-screwed. I start the game off with an attacking 5/4 flying Falkenrath Torturer. He eventually goes down to 8, then 2. He tries to stall with a Glissa, the Traitor, but I sac a Galvanic Juggernaut for the win.

2-1 (2-1)

Wow, 2-1 for a precon! The previous deck I only got 1-2s. This is a sign that the deck is quite powerful off the box.

Time for me to meddle with it...

OUT: 1 Wakedancer
It’s just a weak card that we don’t really want to see in the deck. I prefer humans over zombies. If we don’t get morbid right, it’s a bad card. If we do get morbid, it’s mediocre (compare to Blade Splicer).

OUT: 2 Night Terrors
I had this card in hand every single game and didn’t cast it. Why? I wanted to use my mana for stuff that actually interacted with my gameplan, i.e. casting and saccing creatures.

OUT: 2 Death’s Caress
The good thing is, it’s removal. The bad thing is, it’s bad removal. 5 mana? We can do something much, much better than the Caress.

OUT: 2 Village Cannibals
The point is, I feel like the Unruly Mob is better because we’re not only sacrificing Humans, we’re sacrificing other stuff too, as shown in Game 3. I may change this later, however, if the deck becomes more Human-based.

OUT: 1 Unburial Rites
My big problem with Unburial Rites is that I’m using it to bring back creatures like Falkenrath Torturer and Unruly Mob. Point is, I’m not getting the full value out of this card. It’s out.

8 cards out! Let’s see what we do to the new slots.

IN: 4 Tragic Slip
The auto-include. Tragic Slip lets you get rid of small utility creatures as a base effect and kills basically everything with morbid. All at 1 mana.

IN: 1 Gather the Townsfolk
Once again, we need 4 copies. The Townsfolk provide easy human sacrifice as well as a game-winner if your back is on the edge.

IN: 2 Skirsdag Flayer
The Flayers are extremely useful. They got some bad luck on Game 2, but I’ll be happy to pay 4, sacrifice one of my Human tokens from Gather the Townsfolk, and kill an opposing creature.

IN: 1 Galvanic Juggernaut
I have been pleasantly surprised about the Juggernaut. It has a fat body we need to win games as well as basically having vigilance. Oh, and it only costs 4 mana. It’s great.

Here’s the new list:

Dark Sacrifice v.1.1
Lands
1 Haunted Fengraf
12 Plains
11 Swamp
Creatures
1 Champion of the Parish
1 Disciple of Griselbrand
2 Doomed Traveler
2 Elder Cathar
2 Elguad Inquisitor
3 Falkenrath Torturer
1 Fiend of the Shadows
3 Galvanic Juggernaut
1 Mausoleum Guard
1 Selfless Cathar
3 Skirsdag Flayer
2 Unruly Mob
Other Spells
2 Altar’s Reap
1 Avacyn’s Collar
1 Demonmail Hauberk
4 Gather the Townsfolk
1 Gravepurge
1 Lingering Souls
4 Tragic Slip



I’ll see you soon with new improvements and matchups. Feedback and suggestions please!



« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 05:33:22 AM by Prophylaxis »

[Guypocolypse]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

"But adding words is boring"

Any hints on what the hidden post is?













Also












This












Helps












If












You













Want











A










Long












Post.











😜

Since
I'm
Posting
Here
Again
How is
Everybody
.
.
.

I have decided to copy And paste Prophylaxis' "Evolving Precons: Dark Sacrifice"! So, here it is!

February 18, 2012, 06:00:54 AM
Dark Sacrifice - From flashback parlor to human sacrifice

Welcome to the second deck we’re building on “Evolving Precons”! You guys voted on Dark Sacrifice, a scary white and black deck that focuses on sacrificing Humans. Mmm, tasty. There are a couple of cards in Innistrad that benefit from creatures dying, and Dark Ascension ups the notch.

Let’s see the decklist:

Dark Sacrifice v.1.0
Lands
1 Haunted Fengraf
12 Plains
11 Swamp
Creatures
1 Champion of the Parish
1 Disciple of Griselbrand
2 Doomed Traveler
2 Elder Cathar
2 Elguad Inquisitor
3 Falkenrath Torturer
1 Fiend of the Shadows
2 Galvanic Juggernaut
1 Mausoleum Guard
1 Selfless Cathar
1 Skirsdag Flayer
2 Unruly Mob
2 Village Cannibals
1 Wakedancer
Other Spells
2 Altar’s Reap
1 Avacyn’s Collar
2 Death’s Caress
1 Demonmail Hauberk
3 Gather the Townsfolk
1 Gravepurge
1 Lingering Souls
2 Night Terrors
1 Unburial Rites

At first glance, here are some of my thoughts.

I think it’s interesting that the Haunted Fengraf was put there. A nonbasic land that helps with our plans? Yes, please!

b. Champion of the Parish provides both a blessing and a dilemma. A blessing because he is strong and will win games for us. A dilemma because he costs like $4 right now. I think that he can be easily acquired (event deck, Innistrad rare) but I may end up cutting him.

c. The deck looks fun to play. I can’t wait to sacrifice humans to put +1/+1 counters on my creatures, destroy opposing creatures, and grind out that incremental advantage.

d. There are a lot of obvious inclusions to the deck that we’ll be adding.

So yeah; here are my results and the improvements that follow.

Game 1 - R/U Flashback

He gets out an early Delver of Secrets, but he doesn’t transform it. My first turn play is a Lingering Souls. I soon attack with them, and he trades with one using his flipped Delver. I then try a Wakedancer with morbid. I attack, then he goes down to 16. He soon plays a Beguiler of Wills, and with all of my low-power creatures, I know I’m in for a rough time.

I control my board, however, by casting a Galvanic Juggernaut and equipping a Demonmail Hauberk to it. Sacrificing excess creatures seems good in this deck. He tries to go aggro, with a Runechanter’s Pike equipped Delver. I charge with my 9/7 Juggernaut, then Death’s Caress the Delver to untap the ‘naut. His Beguiler ends up chumping my Juggernaut and dying. He then resigns, having no way to kill the ‘naut.

1-0 (1-0)

Game 2 - Valadin’s Neverending Depression

I get out a quick Unruly Mob with some Falkenrath Torturer)s to back it up. He gets out some morbid and Birthing Pod. He makes a synergistic play:

sac Ulvenwald Bear, play Undying Evil.
Get out Festerhide Boar, enters battlefield as a 5/5, bear comes back with +1/+1 counter, make the Boar 7/7.

Yeah.

Wait. I manage to get my Mob to 5/5, and then I luck out a Skirsdag Flayer. He Tragic Slips the Flayer (insert mad symbol), then attacks with his two Boars (one 7/7, one 5/5). I manage to trade with the 7/7 boar, but he still deals 5 scary damage to me with his other Boar and pods it into a Vorapede.

Me? All I manage to do is Unburial Rites the Flayer. He then Tragic Slips the Flayer again (still inserts mad symbol). I concede.

1-1 (1-1)

Game 3 - Wally’s Green/Black Infect

My opponent starts the game off mana-screwed. I start the game off with an attacking 5/4 flying Falkenrath Torturer. He eventually goes down to 8, then 2. He tries to stall with a Glissa, the Traitor, but I sac a Galvanic Juggernaut for the win.

2-1 (2-1)

Wow, 2-1 for a precon! The previous deck I only got 1-2s. This is a sign that the deck is quite powerful off the box.

Time for me to meddle with it...

OUT: 1 Wakedancer
It’s just a weak card that we don’t really want to see in the deck. I prefer humans over zombies. If we don’t get morbid right, it’s a bad card. If we do get morbid, it’s mediocre (compare to Blade Splicer).

OUT: 2 Night Terrors
I had this card in hand every single game and didn’t cast it. Why? I wanted to use my mana for stuff that actually interacted with my gameplan, i.e. casting and saccing creatures.

OUT: 2 Death’s Caress
The good thing is, it’s removal. The bad thing is, it’s bad removal. 5 mana? We can do something much, much better than the Caress.

OUT: 2 Village Cannibals
The point is, I feel like the Unruly Mob is better because we’re not only sacrificing Humans, we’re sacrificing other stuff too, as shown in Game 3. I may change this later, however, if the deck becomes more Human-based.

OUT: 1 Unburial Rites
My big problem with Unburial Rites is that I’m using it to bring back creatures like Falkenrath Torturer and Unruly Mob. Point is, I’m not getting the full value out of this card. It’s out.

8 cards out! Let’s see what we do to the new slots.

IN: 4 Tragic Slip
The auto-include. Tragic Slip lets you get rid of small utility creatures as a base effect and kills basically everything with morbid. All at 1 mana.

IN: 1 Gather the Townsfolk
Once again, we need 4 copies. The Townsfolk provide easy human sacrifice as well as a game-winner if your back is on the edge.

IN: 2 Skirsdag Flayer
The Flayers are extremely useful. They got some bad luck on Game 2, but I’ll be happy to pay 4, sacrifice one of my Human tokens from Gather the Townsfolk, and kill an opposing creature.

IN: 1 Galvanic Juggernaut
I have been pleasantly surprised about the Juggernaut. It has a fat body we need to win games as well as basically having vigilance. Oh, and it only costs 4 mana. It’s great.

Here’s the new list:

Dark Sacrifice v.1.1
Lands
1 Haunted Fengraf
12 Plains
11 Swamp
Creatures
1 Champion of the Parish
1 Disciple of Griselbrand
2 Doomed Traveler
2 Elder Cathar
2 Elguad Inquisitor
3 Falkenrath Torturer
1 Fiend of the Shadows
3 Galvanic Juggernaut
1 Mausoleum Guard
1 Selfless Cathar
3 Skirsdag Flayer
2 Unruly Mob
Other Spells
2 Altar’s Reap
1 Avacyn’s Collar
1 Demonmail Hauberk
4 Gather the Townsfolk
1 Gravepurge
1 Lingering Souls
4 Tragic Slip



I’ll see you soon with new improvements and matchups. Feedback and suggestions please!



« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 05:33:22 AM by Prophylaxis »

[Imdowd80]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

"But adding words is boring"

Any hints on what the hidden post is?













Also












This












Helps












If












You













Want











A










Long












Post.











😜

Since
I'm
Posting
Here
Again
How is
Everybody
.
.
.

I have decided to copy And paste Prophylaxis' "Evolving Precons: Dark Sacrifice"! So, here it is!

February 18, 2012, 06:00:54 AM
Dark Sacrifice - From flashback parlor to human sacrifice

Welcome to the second deck we’re building on “Evolving Precons”! You guys voted on Dark Sacrifice, a scary white and black deck that focuses on sacrificing Humans. Mmm, tasty. There are a couple of cards in Innistrad that benefit from creatures dying, and Dark Ascension ups the notch.

Let’s see the decklist:

Dark Sacrifice v.1.0
Lands
1 Haunted Fengraf
12 Plains
11 Swamp
Creatures
1 Champion of the Parish
1 Disciple of Griselbrand
2 Doomed Traveler
2 Elder Cathar
2 Elguad Inquisitor
3 Falkenrath Torturer
1 Fiend of the Shadows
2 Galvanic Juggernaut
1 Mausoleum Guard
1 Selfless Cathar
1 Skirsdag Flayer
2 Unruly Mob
2 Village Cannibals
1 Wakedancer
Other Spells
2 Altar’s Reap
1 Avacyn’s Collar
2 Death’s Caress
1 Demonmail Hauberk
3 Gather the Townsfolk
1 Gravepurge
1 Lingering Souls
2 Night Terrors
1 Unburial Rites

At first glance, here are some of my thoughts.

I think it’s interesting that the Haunted Fengraf was put there. A nonbasic land that helps with our plans? Yes, please!

b. Champion of the Parish provides both a blessing and a dilemma. A blessing because he is strong and will win games for us. A dilemma because he costs like $4 right now. I think that he can be easily acquired (event deck, Innistrad rare) but I may end up cutting him.

c. The deck looks fun to play. I can’t wait to sacrifice humans to put +1/+1 counters on my creatures, destroy opposing creatures, and grind out that incremental advantage.

d. There are a lot of obvious inclusions to the deck that we’ll be adding.

So yeah; here are my results and the improvements that follow.

Game 1 - R/U Flashback

He gets out an early Delver of Secrets, but he doesn’t transform it. My first turn play is a Lingering Souls. I soon attack with them, and he trades with one using his flipped Delver. I then try a Wakedancer with morbid. I attack, then he goes down to 16. He soon plays a Beguiler of Wills, and with all of my low-power creatures, I know I’m in for a rough time.

I control my board, however, by casting a Galvanic Juggernaut and equipping a Demonmail Hauberk to it. Sacrificing excess creatures seems good in this deck. He tries to go aggro, with a Runechanter’s Pike equipped Delver. I charge with my 9/7 Juggernaut, then Death’s Caress the Delver to untap the ‘naut. His Beguiler ends up chumping my Juggernaut and dying. He then resigns, having no way to kill the ‘naut.

1-0 (1-0)

Game 2 - Valadin’s Neverending Depression

I get out a quick Unruly Mob with some Falkenrath Torturer)s to back it up. He gets out some morbid and Birthing Pod. He makes a synergistic play:

sac Ulvenwald Bear, play Undying Evil.
Get out Festerhide Boar, enters battlefield as a 5/5, bear comes back with +1/+1 counter, make the Boar 7/7.

Yeah.

Wait. I manage to get my Mob to 5/5, and then I luck out a Skirsdag Flayer. He Tragic Slips the Flayer (insert mad symbol), then attacks with his two Boars (one 7/7, one 5/5). I manage to trade with the 7/7 boar, but he still deals 5 scary damage to me with his other Boar and pods it into a Vorapede.

Me? All I manage to do is Unburial Rites the Flayer. He then Tragic Slips the Flayer again (still inserts mad symbol). I concede.

1-1 (1-1)

Game 3 - Wally’s Green/Black Infect

My opponent starts the game off mana-screwed. I start the game off with an attacking 5/4 flying Falkenrath Torturer. He eventually goes down to 8, then 2. He tries to stall with a Glissa, the Traitor, but I sac a Galvanic Juggernaut for the win.

2-1 (2-1)

Wow, 2-1 for a precon! The previous deck I only got 1-2s. This is a sign that the deck is quite powerful off the box.

Time for me to meddle with it...

OUT: 1 Wakedancer
It’s just a weak card that we don’t really want to see in the deck. I prefer humans over zombies. If we don’t get morbid right, it’s a bad card. If we do get morbid, it’s mediocre (compare to Blade Splicer).

OUT: 2 Night Terrors
I had this card in hand every single game and didn’t cast it. Why? I wanted to use my mana for stuff that actually interacted with my gameplan, i.e. casting and saccing creatures.

OUT: 2 Death’s Caress
The good thing is, it’s removal. The bad thing is, it’s bad removal. 5 mana? We can do something much, much better than the Caress.

OUT: 2 Village Cannibals
The point is, I feel like the Unruly Mob is better because we’re not only sacrificing Humans, we’re sacrificing other stuff too, as shown in Game 3. I may change this later, however, if the deck becomes more Human-based.

OUT: 1 Unburial Rites
My big problem with Unburial Rites is that I’m using it to bring back creatures like Falkenrath Torturer and Unruly Mob. Point is, I’m not getting the full value out of this card. It’s out.

8 cards out! Let’s see what we do to the new slots.

IN: 4 Tragic Slip
The auto-include. Tragic Slip lets you get rid of small utility creatures as a base effect and kills basically everything with morbid. All at 1 mana.

IN: 1 Gather the Townsfolk
Once again, we need 4 copies. The Townsfolk provide easy human sacrifice as well as a game-winner if your back is on the edge.

IN: 2 Skirsdag Flayer
The Flayers are extremely useful. They got some bad luck on Game 2, but I’ll be happy to pay 4, sacrifice one of my Human tokens from Gather the Townsfolk, and kill an opposing creature.

IN: 1 Galvanic Juggernaut
I have been pleasantly surprised about the Juggernaut. It has a fat body we need to win games as well as basically having vigilance. Oh, and it only costs 4 mana. It’s great.

Here’s the new list:

Dark Sacrifice v.1.1
Lands
1 Haunted Fengraf
12 Plains
11 Swamp
Creatures
1 Champion of the Parish
1 Disciple of Griselbrand
2 Doomed Traveler
2 Elder Cathar
2 Elguad Inquisitor
3 Falkenrath Torturer
1 Fiend of the Shadows
3 Galvanic Juggernaut
1 Mausoleum Guard
1 Selfless Cathar
3 Skirsdag Flayer
2 Unruly Mob
Other Spells
2 Altar’s Reap
1 Avacyn’s Collar
1 Demonmail Hauberk
4 Gather the Townsfolk
1 Gravepurge
1 Lingering Souls
4 Tragic Slip



I’ll see you soon with new improvements and matchups. Feedback and suggestions please!



« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 05:33:22 AM by Prophylaxis »

TL/DR.

[Guypocolypse]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original Niggerstonguemyasshole?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Hidden post in there. Lets see who finds it first.

"But adding words is boring"

Any hints on what the hidden post is?













Also












This












Helps












If












You













Want











A










Long












Post.











😜

Since
I'm
Posting
Here
Again
How is
Everybody
.
.
.

I have decided to copy And paste Prophylaxis' "Evolving Precons: Dark Sacrifice"! So, here it is!

February 18, 2012, 06:00:54 AM
Dark Sacrifice - From flashback parlor to human sacrifice

Welcome to the second deck we’re building on “Evolving Precons”! You guys voted on Dark Sacrifice, a scary white and black deck that focuses on sacrificing Humans. Mmm, tasty. There are a couple of cards in Innistrad that benefit from creatures dying, and Dark Ascension ups the notch.

Let’s see the decklist:

Dark Sacrifice v.1.0
Lands
1 Haunted Fengraf
12 Plains
11 Swamp
Creatures
1 Champion of the Parish
1 Disciple of Griselbrand
2 Doomed Traveler
2 Elder Cathar
2 Elguad Inquisitor
3 Falkenrath Torturer
1 Fiend of the Shadows
2 Galvanic Juggernaut
1 Mausoleum Guard
1 Selfless Cathar
1 Skirsdag Flayer
2 Unruly Mob
2 Village Cannibals
1 Wakedancer
Other Spells
2 Altar’s Reap
1 Avacyn’s Collar
2 Death’s Caress
1 Demonmail Hauberk
3 Gather the Townsfolk
1 Gravepurge
1 Lingering Souls
2 Night Terrors
1 Unburial Rites

At first glance, here are some of my thoughts.

I think it’s interesting that the Haunted Fengraf was put there. A nonbasic land that helps with our plans? Yes, please!

b. Champion of the Parish provides both a blessing and a dilemma. A blessing because he is strong and will win games for us. A dilemma because he costs like $4 right now. I think that he can be easily acquired (event deck, Innistrad rare) but I may end up cutting him.

c. The deck looks fun to play. I can’t wait to sacrifice humans to put +1/+1 counters on my creatures, destroy opposing creatures, and grind out that incremental advantage.

d. There are a lot of obvious inclusions to the deck that we’ll be adding.

So yeah; here are my results and the improvements that follow.

Game 1 - R/U Flashback

He gets out an early Delver of Secrets, but he doesn’t transform it. My first turn play is a Lingering Souls. I soon attack with them, and he trades with one using his flipped Delver. I then try a Wakedancer with morbid. I attack, then he goes down to 16. He soon plays a Beguiler of Wills, and with all of my low-power creatures, I know I’m in for a rough time.

I control my board, however, by casting a Galvanic Juggernaut and equipping a Demonmail Hauberk to it. Sacrificing excess creatures seems good in this deck. He tries to go aggro, with a Runechanter’s Pike equipped Delver. I charge with my 9/7 Juggernaut, then Death’s Caress the Delver to untap the ‘naut. His Beguiler ends up chumping my Juggernaut and dying. He then resigns, having no way to kill the ‘naut.

1-0 (1-0)

Game 2 - Valadin’s Neverending Depression

I get out a quick Unruly Mob with some Falkenrath Torturer)s to back it up. He gets out some morbid and Birthing Pod. He makes a synergistic play:

sac Ulvenwald Bear, play Undying Evil.
Get out Festerhide Boar, enters battlefield as a 5/5, bear comes back with +1/+1 counter, make the Boar 7/7.

Yeah.

Wait. I manage to get my Mob to 5/5, and then I luck out a Skirsdag Flayer. He Tragic Slips the Flayer (insert mad symbol), then attacks with his two Boars (one 7/7, one 5/5). I manage to trade with the 7/7 boar, but he still deals 5 scary damage to me with his other Boar and pods it into a Vorapede.

Me? All I manage to do is Unburial Rites the Flayer. He then Tragic Slips the Flayer again (still inserts mad symbol). I concede.

1-1 (1-1)

Game 3 - Wally’s Green/Black Infect

My opponent starts the game off mana-screwed. I start the game off with an attacking 5/4 flying Falkenrath Torturer. He eventually goes down to 8, then 2. He tries to stall with a Glissa, the Traitor, but I sac a Galvanic Juggernaut for the win.

2-1 (2-1)

Wow, 2-1 for a precon! The previous deck I only got 1-2s. This is a sign that the deck is quite powerful off the box.

Time for me to meddle with it...

OUT: 1 Wakedancer
It’s just a weak card that we don’t really want to see in the deck. I prefer humans over zombies. If we don’t get morbid right, it’s a bad card. If we do get morbid, it’s mediocre (compare to Blade Splicer).

OUT: 2 Night Terrors
I had this card in hand every single game and didn’t cast it. Why? I wanted to use my mana for stuff that actually interacted with my gameplan, i.e. casting and saccing creatures.

OUT: 2 Death’s Caress
The good thing is, it’s removal. The bad thing is, it’s bad removal. 5 mana? We can do something much, much better than the Caress.

OUT: 2 Village Cannibals
The point is, I feel like the Unruly Mob is better because we’re not only sacrificing Humans, we’re sacrificing other stuff too, as shown in Game 3. I may change this later, however, if the deck becomes more Human-based.

OUT: 1 Unburial Rites
My big problem with Unburial Rites is that I’m using it to bring back creatures like Falkenrath Torturer and Unruly Mob. Point is, I’m not getting the full value out of this card. It’s out.

8 cards out! Let’s see what we do to the new slots.

IN: 4 Tragic Slip
The auto-include. Tragic Slip lets you get rid of small utility creatures as a base effect and kills basically everything with morbid. All at 1 mana.

IN: 1 Gather the Townsfolk
Once again, we need 4 copies. The Townsfolk provide easy human sacrifice as well as a game-winner if your back is on the edge.

IN: 2 Skirsdag Flayer
The Flayers are extremely useful. They got some bad luck on Game 2, but I’ll be happy to pay 4, sacrifice one of my Human tokens from Gather the Townsfolk, and kill an opposing creature.

IN: 1 Galvanic Juggernaut
I have been pleasantly surprised about the Juggernaut. It has a fat body we need to win games as well as basically having vigilance. Oh, and it only costs 4 mana. It’s great.

Here’s the new list:

Dark Sacrifice v.1.1
Lands
1 Haunted Fengraf
12 Plains
11 Swamp
Creatures
1 Champion of the Parish
1 Disciple of Griselbrand
2 Doomed Traveler
2 Elder Cathar
2 Elguad Inquisitor
3 Falkenrath Torturer
1 Fiend of the Shadows
3 Galvanic Juggernaut
1 Mausoleum Guard
1 Selfless Cathar
3 Skirsdag Flayer
2 Unruly Mob
Other Spells
2 Altar’s Reap
1 Avacyn’s Collar
1 Demonmail Hauberk
4 Gather the Townsfolk
1 Gravepurge
1 Lingering Souls
4 Tragic Slip



I’ll see you soon with new improvements and matchups. Feedback and suggestions please!



« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 05:33:22 AM by Prophylaxis »

TL/DR.

[Sagemaster]

In this thread you quote the user above you. The goal is to see how long of a quote chain we can get going.

But adding words is boring

like this?

Challenge accepted

adding words may help make it longer

My fellow zombies have let loose in Florida!   Muhahaha

Florida sucks.

Trololol

Hohohohoho!!

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[1]

These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."[20]

Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, "Political terrorism: A Research Guide," Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on" Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt."[21]
Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:


The Baghdad bus station was the scene of a triple car bombing in August 2005 that killed 43 people.
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :
ineluctably political in aims and motives
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.[22]
A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."[23]
Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".[citation needed] This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.[citation needed] Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,[according to whom?] but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front[24] and Animal Liberation Front[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.[26] Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[28]

Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.[according to whom?] The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.[citation needed] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[31]

Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"[citation needed] that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[32]


A collection of photographs of those killed during the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[33][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.[citation needed] For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.[original research?] This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[10][35][36][37]

Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.[citation needed] Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.[citation needed] According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.[38]

An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[39] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.[citation needed]

Winning 😜

Hourglass shape

Is that for a final of yours?

Bajajhz'K@&€|!@$'f jKa alHsmkznd kjanajKnjs

Wiki I would not spend all that time putting that into a post lol

TL;DR

The hidden one is before my rambling XD

[Guypocolypse]

Non quote

[Sagemaster]

Non quote

Oh okay that ^^^ 😜