Originally Posted by
Paroxysm
So let me get this straight, I give you a wikipedia link to categorized acts of violence and terrorism for religious purposes, and the best thing you can come up with is a ring-wing blog with one case and laughable understanding of communist Russia.
/not impressed
It wasn't meant to be serious. :P
Originally Posted by
Empire
Um, no. Thats people with self-esteem issues.
>_< you and dubs, go look up terrorism and hypocrite.
i swear.
Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie.
For example, a man who complains of cars speeding down his street, but speeds himself would be considered a hypocrite.
Hypocrisy may come from a desire to hide from others actual motives or feelings. Hypocrisy is not simply an inconsistency between what is praised or admired and what is done. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[1]
