Mossad at its best!

I3BrigPvSk said:
No, it's nothing wrong with the English definition of the assassinate/assassination. Btw, you aren't in a position to determinate the definition of English words. One more thing. there aren't any differences legally between the words murder, kill, and/or assassinate. The courts regardless country will treat the offender in the same way. The sentencing will be different if the offender has planned to murder/kill/assassinate somebody or if the offender did it in the heat of the moment. The majority of the homicides around the world occur in the heat of the moment.

This thread explains a lot when you have your own definition of words. Ask your mom about the definitions of words before saying something.
Click to expand...

There are no first degree murders in Germany ( and the Israeli athletes were murdered in Germany, not in the USA ),thus : why are you talking about first degree murder, why are you using the Oxford/Cambridge / Collins dictionary ?These have no place in Germany or in the Middle East .
A court in Europe will laugh at a lawyer who will talk about first,second or third degree murder .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
No, it's nothing wrong with the English definition of the assassinate/assassination. Btw, you aren't in a position to determinate the definition of English words. One more thing. there aren't any differences legally between the words murder, kill, and/or assassinate. The courts regardless country will treat the offender in the same way. The sentencing will be different if the offender has planned to murder/kill/assassinate somebody or if the offender did it in the heat of the moment. The majority of the homicides around the world occur in the heat of the moment.

This thread explains a lot when you have your own definition of words. Ask your mom about the definitions of words before saying something.
Click to expand...

I wonder if lljadw's mum dropped on his head or if he was born stupid.

In all honesty I have never known anyone as stupid or totally wrong as lljadw.
 
Last edited:
lljadw said:
There are no first degree murders in Germany ( and the Israeli athletes were murdered in Germany, not in the USA ),thus : why are you talking about first degree murder, why are you using the Oxford/Cambridge / Collins dictionary ?These have no place in Germany or in the Middle East .
A court in Europe will laugh at a lawyer who will talk about first,second or third degree murder .
Click to expand...

The terms first degree murder, second degree murder, etc are commonly used in the English speaking world and this is an English speaking forum.

The definition of the English word assassinate is the same regardless where you are. You must be really stupid if you think the definition changes if you are somewhere else.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The terms first degree murder, second degree murder, etc are commonly used in the English speaking world and this is an English speaking forum.

The definition of the English word assassinate is the same regardless where you are. You must be really stupid if you think the definition changes if you are somewhere else.
Click to expand...

What we are discussing did not happen in the English speaking world . To use English terms for what happened outside the English speaking world ,is cultural imperialism .The definition of the English word assassinate applies only to the English speaking world , not for Germany .What happens in Germany must be discussed with the English translation of German terms,of German words .First degree murder does NOT exist in Germany .
And, of course,the definition, the meaning of words changes following the country where you are,where something happens . .
 
lljadw said:
What we are discussing did not happen in the English speaking world . To use English terms for what happened outside the English speaking world ,is cultural imperialism .The definition of the English word assassinate applies only to the English speaking world , not for Germany .What happens in Germany must be discussed with the English translation of German terms,of German words .First degree murder does NOT exist in Germany .
And, of course,the definition, the meaning of words changes following the country where you are,where something happens . .
Click to expand...

:p His village is missing its idiot:p

This bloke is a complete and total numbnut.
 
lljadw said:
What we are discussing did not happen in the English speaking world . To use English terms for what happened outside the English speaking world ,is cultural imperialism .The definition of the English word assassinate applies only to the English speaking world , not for Germany .What happens in Germany must be discussed with the English translation of German terms,of German words .First degree murder does NOT exist in Germany .
And, of course,the definition, the meaning of words changes following the country where you are,where something happens . .
Click to expand...

English is considered to be the language of science. It doesn't matter where people are speaking English, they use the correct definition of the word assassinate. Btw, the word assassinate appears in other languages as well,

American English: assassinate
Brazilian Portuguese: assassinar
Chinese: > 刺杀因政治原因而
European Spanish: asesinar
French: assassiner
German: ermorden
Italian: assassinare
Japanese: 暗殺する
Korean: 암살당하다
European Portuguese: assassinar
Latin American Spanish: asesinar
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I'm amused. Two non-native English speakers are arguing about the definition of a word, but it's good to know I can decide the meaning of words wherever I am.
Click to expand...

lljadw would argue black was white just to be annoying.

It does show that you are more intelligent then he is, my German Shepherd is more intelligent then he is, a chocolate teapot is more intelligent then he is.

I must admit the English language is full of pit falls and double meanings.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The terms first degree murder, second degree murder, etc are commonly used in the English speaking world and this is an English speaking forum.

The definition of the English word assassinate is the same regardless where you are. You must be really stupid if you think the definition changes if you are somewhere else.
Click to expand...


I can't think of any English speaking countries outside of the USA and Canada which use first and second degree murder so I think he is right on that albeit in a very pedantic way, most nations appear to have formulated their own legal definition of murder.

lljadw said:
You can't say that the Israeli athletes were killed and that the terrorists were murdered .
To kill a terrorist is a legitimate action , it is never a murder or an assassination .
Click to expand...

This is however entirely incorrect as you can "murder" a terrorist, for example two former British soldiers were charged with murdering IRA leader Joe McCann in 1972 and you can say that Israeli athletes were killed as that is the result of an action (as in they are dead), the term murder or assassinated is the description of how they died.

BritinAfrica said:
I must admit the English language is full of pit falls and double meanings.
Click to expand...

Yes it is but it is also the most diverse and adaptable language on the planet which is what makes it so much fun.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I can't think of any English speaking countries outside of the USA and Canada which use first and second degree murder so I think he is right on that albeit in a very pedantic way, most nations appear to have formulated their own legal definition of murder.



This is however entirely incorrect as you can "murder" a terrorist, for example two former British soldiers were charged with murdering IRA leader Joe McCann in 1972 and you can say that Israeli athletes were killed as that is the result of an action (as in they are dead), the term murder or assassinated is the description of how they died.
Click to expand...
The soldiers were accused (44 !! years after what happened ) for political reasons : it was only political correctness .Besides : there is still no trial .
 
You said and I quote "To kill a terrorist is a legitimate action , it is never a murder or an assassination ." clearly that is not the case as I demonstrated with my example.
As far as my opinion on the McCann case I wouldn't find them guilty myself McCann chose a life style and paid the price but the law has different standards to what I think on this one.
 
MontyB said:
I can't think of any English speaking countries outside of the USA and Canada which use first and second degree murder so I think he is right on that albeit in a very pedantic way, most nations appear to have formulated their own legal definition of murder.

My bad, I shouldn't have used it, but I read the UK and NZ are using the terms. The majority of countries differentiates between planned/cruel/heinous murders and those committed in the heat of the moment when the victim and the offender have some sort of a relationship, or other not planned murders. Courts in democratic states are usually using "Beyond any reasonable doubts" and that can be a bit strange, but it is a part of having a legal system following human rights and democratic principles.

Another controversial "killing" was when the SAS killed three members of the IRA in Gibraltar, it caused a debate if it was a good idea to use the military for handling terrorists. There weren't any murder charges filed against the SAS for its action in Gibraltar. They prevented an attack against the Remembrance Day Parade.
Click to expand...
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
My bad, I shouldn't have used it, but I read the UK and NZ are using the terms. The majority of countries differentiates between planned/cruel/heinous murders and those committed in the heat of the moment when the victim and the offender have some sort of a relationship, or other not planned murders. Courts in democratic states are usually using "Beyond any reasonable doubts" and that can be a bit strange, but it is a part of having a legal system following human rights and democratic principles.
Click to expand...


We dont use it at all, we have Murder and Manslaughter, murder pretty much covers everything from premeditated to heat of the moment action any mitigating circumstances are accounted for in the sentencing process and manslaughter is essentially neglegent deaths.





Another controversial "killing" was when the SAS killed three members of the IRA in Gibraltar, it caused a debate if it was a good idea to use the military for handling terrorists. There weren't any murder charges filed against the SAS for its action in Gibraltar. They prevented an attack against the Remembrance Day Parade.
Click to expand...


Indeed in that case I really dont have any issue with the SAS handling of the situation as the IRA had a van load of explosives and were in the way to carrying out an attack, McCann case is slightly different in that he was unarmed and not posing a threat at the time of his shooting which makes it a little more in line with an assassination, that being said he was a known terrorist, was known to have carried out armed attacks and no innocent bystanders were injured so sucks to be him basically.
 
MontyB said:
We dont use it at all, we have Murder and Manslaughter, murder pretty much covers everything from premeditated to heat of the moment action any mitigating circumstances are accounted for in the sentencing process and manslaughter is essentially neglegent deaths.








Indeed in that case I really dont have any issue with the SAS handling of the situation as the IRA had a van load of explosives and were in the way to carrying out an attack, McCann case is slightly different in that he was unarmed and not posing a threat at the time of his shooting which makes it a little more in line with an assassination, that being said he was a known terrorist, was known to have carried out armed attacks and no innocent bystanders were injured so sucks to be him basically.
Click to expand...


Oh, I thought NZ uses the terms. I found this article from NZ
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/...introduced,the existing definitions of murder.

I think the controversial part of the SAS operation in Gibraltar was, the SAS soldiers were wearing civilian clothes and didn't identified themselves as soldiers or police officers. I don't have any issues with what the SAS did in Gibraltar, but it might have been more efficient if they had apprehended the terrorists to maybe been able to capture more of them. But soldiers behave differently than what police officers do
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Oh, I thought NZ uses the terms. I found this article from NZ
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/...introduced,the existing definitions of murder.
Click to expand...

That was a proposed bill to introduce degrees of murder but it never made it through parliament.

I think the controversial part of the SAS operation in Gibraltar was, the SAS soldiers were wearing civilian clothes and didn't identified themselves as soldiers or police officers. I don't have any issues with what the SAS did in Gibraltar, but it might have been more efficient if they had apprehended the terrorists to maybe been able to capture more of them. But soldiers behave differently than what police officers do
Click to expand...

To be honest I don't care whether they were all dressed as Krusty the Clown if you are in the process of carrying out an attack and get shot in the process too bad, I think the British should have been far more ruthless with the IRA than they were.
 
MontyB said:
To be honest I don't care whether they were all dressed as Krusty the Clown if you are in the process of carrying out an attack and get shot in the process too bad, I think the British should have been far more ruthless with the IRA than they were.
Click to expand...

I cannot agree more with this, absolutely spot on. The troops in Northern Ireland were fighting a war (yes it was a war) with one hand tied behind their back. What is rarely understood, British troops went into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics!

What angers me greatly, IRA murderers have been given a free pass from prosecution after murdering innocent men, women and children and troops trying to keep the peace, yet Troops who served in Northern Ireland are being prosecuted for doing their duty.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, BUT, I firmly believe the death penalty should have been carried out on cowardly terrorists.
 
BritinAfrica said:
I cannot agree more with this, absolutely spot on. The troops in Northern Ireland were fighting a war (yes it was a war) with one hand tied behind their back. What is rarely understood, British troops went into Northern Ireland to protect the Catholics!

What angers me greatly, IRA murderers have been given a free pass from prosecution after murdering innocent men, women and children and troops trying to keep the peace, yet Troops who served in Northern Ireland are being prosecuted for doing their duty.

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, BUT, I firmly believe the death penalty should have been carried out on cowardly terrorists.
Click to expand...

I am prepared to give them a pass on attacking troops but I believe that attacks on civilians should still be prosecutable.

I am a fan of the death penalty, I concede that it doesn't stop offending but it sure as hell stops re-offending.
 
If I remember correctly under the Geneva Convention those fighting in civilian clothes are not afforded the protection of the convention. and are liable to suffer capital punishment.

Albert Pierpoint, Britain's last hangman stated that the death penalty does not deter premeditated murder, as Monty stated which I agree with, it does stop reoffending. However, there have been miscarriages of justice such as the death penalty handed out to Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis. The hanging of Ruth Ellis caused such outrage by the British public, it brought about the abolition of the death penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top