Whether animals have souls or not I don't know; I don't care, actually.

I don't think humans and animals are mutually exclusive terms. Humans are by fact animals, though we have morality and self-consciousness to set us apart.

And, for what it's worth, I can be very bestial and brutish at times. I need to be, at certain times; it's a social and evolutionary necessity.

Talk of "categorically evil" or "categorically good" tires me, and disappoints me. There's absolutely no contextual relativity taken into account at all with this condemnation of terrorists.

Don Andrew, perhaps you would like to elaborate a bit more about a terrorist still being a person.

If that's what the ladies like, then go for it!

All this talk of killing...I'm sure if we just talked to them that would solve all of our problems right? I mean after all, they ARE intelligent human beings. We could just sit down and explain that we have different religious views than them and that we can all live in peace and harmony. I really think that would work. We could create a council with representatives from each country to get together and Unite every Nation under this council. Then we can have some kind of a peace keeping corp, say the Every Nation United Peace Keeping Force go in and try and talk to these terrorists, sorry, human beings and straighten everything out. I think I'm onto something here, I think this will work much better than blowing their focken brains out.

Actually, I disagree with that quoted definition of an animal; as if living biological entities can be summed in a sentence (human sentence, not dog or cat sentence); it's very absurd, to me.

So, a lionness is brutish and bestial, but what of her motherly qualities? Bringing up her young cubs? Haven't you seen on Wildlife shows where an animal mourns the loss of a relative?

I seem to be missing a point, here.

In fact, I know I have.

In the definition you posted, it's a person who behaves in a brutish or bestial manner. Despite the fact that they behave in a brutish or bestial manner, they're still people. Not good people, I'm not defending the terroritsts, but still people.

I've not in any way in this thread disputed what SC and DC have propositioned as regards a solution to the problem that is terrorism.

Terrorism is a problem, which needs to be dealt with (though it's no different to other forms of terrorism which have occurred and gone on for centuries; now it just happens to be global and/or affecting the most powerful nations on Earth).

No, I entered this thread, and remain in it, to dispute the complete lack of acknowledgment that these people are human beings, by literary and biological definition.

What you're saying is this:

"Human. Terrorist. You can either be one or the other."

It's a proposition which, like I said, shows an utter disregard for contextual relativity.

That's because Capo, you are taking things in the literal sense.

If it makes you feel better, I'll rephrase my reference to terrorists by saying that they ACT like animals.

Is that better now?

Terrorists ARE people.

Just absolutely evil psychotic, homicidal religious fuckhead maniac people.

Capo, I don't think anyone here is saying that your DNA changes when you become a terrorist. I think the point that some are trying to make is that you do not TREAT a terrorist the same way you would another person. This argument or whatever you want to call it has no bearing if you are staying in here to discuss DNA.

....who deserve to be shot on site when caught in the act of committing a terrorist act. These guys that were caught in this airport attack? They should be shot in the head with a nail gun and removed from society.

You know what, lets just end this quickly. Are terrorists human? Human comes from the word "humane" meaning : characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses.

To quote My Cousin Vinnie: "I'm done with dis one"

You really want to stop global terrorism from spreading? You drop a bomb on ANY country that is INTENTIONALLY harboring or aiding any terrorist organization. End of story.

Bye Bye Saudia Arabia. Bye Bye Pakistan.

You said DNA. I didn't.

Yeah, that makes more sense to me.

And sorry, I was under the illusion that all of you were taking things literally. (I mean that phrase - and because I must explain what I mean by things is evidence enough of my not taking terms and definitions for granted - in the sense that they're not taken into account with their context, they're just thrown around as popular buzzphrases; like "if you do this you must be evil!!!!")


Evil by your definition, of course; but I'm sure you know that.

I'd prefer the following sentence: "Terrorists are evolutionally harmful to the human race, and are a malicious threat to the requirements of a society beneficial to the evolution of the human race."

But that's evolutionary talk, which belongs in the "off-limits" section of the board, along with DNA, the Bing Bang, relative dictionaries and notions of a Chocolate Jesus.

You just said "biological definition".....is there something else that makes up humans that isn't DNA? The "biological definition" of a horse is not the same as a human....

So be it.

And I'm sure that you can add a couple of more scumbag countries that are INTENTIONALLY harboring and aiding the terrorists. Fuck em. Blow em off the face of the earth. You'll see how fast some of these other countries will make an about face if we were to make an example out of a few of these other terrorist nations.

Evolution is scientifically proven...as much as Atoms.

The Vatican actually doesn't have any religious problem with it. Why should the rest of us?

As to whay Capo typed, biology don't define people. Actions do.

My point DC is that if Bush tolerates them, why not you?

Fact is, we're fucked by those two. We critically need them like a running back needs offensive lineman deep in enemy territory, and yet I am absolutely sure both governments have one foot on America's side, taking gladly its financial and military aid...and the other foot with the terrorists.

Either way, we're the rimjob.

I was always under the (perhaps wrongful) impression that humane was an adjective stemming from, or befitting, the noun that is human. Humane is "of humanity, having human-like qualities". It wasn't the other way round, surely.

Humans are blank slates. They are not at birth any morally superior or inferior to you or I. They don't know shit. If you don't tell someone their whole life about God, they won't become religious, they won't believe in God. If you kept someone in a room all their life, they have no reason to suspect that this is any different to everyone else's life.

I'm going to wait for Capo to prove his point and then send me and DC a certified letter on which sources we can use to prove him wrong. I'll allow him to edit the letter as he sees fit as well.

We can't talk Biology and we can't talk definitions in proving what is or is not human.....I might have to go get stoned to finish this conversation then

The word Humane came first though

But humans are born with basic characterists, expressions and feelings, these are scientifically proven. When a person dies humans feel for them, whether they lived in a box their whole life or not. What you are saying is that in someway those characteristics are taken away from them.....in which case then they wouldn't be considered humane

Edit: will be right back, have a phone call, just incase I can't answer soon.

And that's why we need to take out the families of terrorists BEFORE they are taught to grow up and kill us. If you attack the cancer at an early stage, you have a much better chance of preventing it from spreading and destroying you.

Fair point. But to get from this that I am discussing DNA is a tad reductive to what I'm saying, no?

I'm hardly discussing DNA. Read what I said again:

I'm here to dispute the complete lack of acknowledgment that these people are human beings. I made reference to "biological definition" so to elaborate upon what I said.

Human beings who deserve to be slaughtered.

No argument there.

The only way to stop them from killing US is to kill them, and I'd much rather they die than me.

That's an entirely different debate altogether, one I know you're passionate about, so I'll let a sleeping dog lie. I don't see how a back-and-forth debate over whether or not these people deserve to die, and who has the power to decide and by which rules they do that, could be beneficial to either of us.

But at least you're not justifying their slaughter on the grounds that they are "not human" anymore.

That's the entire reason why I was in this thread. I found it absurd and amusing that "humane" in the definition DMC gave implied a sympathy or affection towards animals, and that DC, with whom DMC agreed, was justifying their death based on the notion that they were "animals".

Fair enough. But as I said, not animals in the literal sense. In truth, I think that some animals have more humane traits than these terrorists do.

I agree with you there.

The difference being Capo, is that Don Cardi did not say kill these terrorists because they are Muslim, or because they eat green tea leaves, we are saying kill them before they kill OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE. They on the other hand have no compassion for anyone. We are saying kill them out of compassion for others. Much different

Ok, after all this back and forth debate, and all the different feelings about terrorists and what they stand for, I'm going to put a general 2 part question out here:

How do you think global terrorisim should be dealt with and what should be done to any terrorist caught on site, in the act?