As to the twisted way, I agree with that as well.

This is generally refered to as "revisionist history" or "Historical revisionism (negationism)".

Yes, it is. But the examples of things that other totems ask for this, such as Dog spirit, is that you must take the test for leaving a teammate behind., betraying someone, etc. You have the same test for not giving money to a beggar. I think you need to raise the standard for the test to something comparable and just assume / role-play that the magician feels bad about not buying a copy of the big issue.

Now with that said, I don't think anyone has actually tried to claim that the muslims were as clean and pure as the wind driven snow or that they haven't dirtied their hands with the blood of innocents either. (However, I haven't read the book that a poster had suggested so I could be wrong based off the containts of the book.) But yes, I do believe that it is ignorant to assign either group in the conflict with a simple label, whether that label is 'the good guys', 'the bad guys', or 'the victims'. Perhaps a better label would be 'the group that is more likely to aid with our goals in the region', but that label doesn't make said group's actions in the recent or distant past right or acceptable.

No, but it does mean that you don't understand war. It is idiotic to hate one's enemies because it makes peace impossible without the total annihilation of one side or the other.

In war, people shoot each other and they blow each other up. That is just the way it is. It isn't sometime one should get upset about because wars end, political landscapes change, and enemies become allies.

The validity of driving a car filled with explosives into a supermarket and the validity of launching a cruise missile at an enemy leader's home both depend on which side you support. Both will be supported as necessary and good by the side that did it and both will be condemned as evil and cowardly by the other side. That's just the way things are. Neither is more or less valid than the other.

I like to pll out Nelson Mandela as my "blowing up supermarkets is a good thing" example because everybody likes Nelson Mandela. He was the first democratically elected President of South Africa; makes appearances on Opera; he spend years in prison for standing up for his political beliefs.

Nelson Mandela was a political prisoner, of course. He was imprisoned because he choose to express his political beliefs. He expressed those beliefs by blowing stuff up, which is what he was convicted for. He never blow people up, personally, and was never convicted of blowing people up. But, he planned to blow people up, conspired to blow people up, and his followers did blow people up while he was in prison.

But he was a good guy fighting the just fight, so it is okay that his followers blew up banks and restaurants and supermarkets and put tires filled with gasoline around people's necks and set them on fire. These acts can be considered illegal by only the barest of unjust technicalities and completely morally right.

And if those acts are right and just, why the hell isn't it right and just when radical Muslims do it? It is only because we were on Mandela's side. We believed in what he was fighting for. But, we don't believe in what they are fighting for. They're fighting against what we believe in, so their actions are automatically atrocious.

But that is off topic.
The suicide bomber would be a twisted martyr because it is an empty sacrifice. It is trivial to set a bomb and then leave. In most cases, the impact will be the same.The only time that suicide bombing is effective is when one is targeting a specific individual and cannot gain confirmation of that individual's presence from outside of the blast radius.

When written that:
"He protects the innocent and despises slefishness, greed and cowerdice when the time to serve comes for he would sooner destroy himself than take advantage of an innocent"

That would pretty much rule out any situation where you are harming those you do not 100% know are 'guility'.

While sucide bombers MAY be martyr (depending on why and your personal beliefs of why/what they did), 'The Great Spirit of the Martyr' as written by the OP could never tolerate a sucide bomber since they very very likely are going to harm innocents.


Also as a personal note: I would see +2 soak rolls rather then +2 counterspelling. Martyr to me arent necessilry known for 'removing' effects (especially magic) but sotically suffering for their beliefs. (or perhaps +2 pain resitance).

you keep using that word "patriotic",

I do not think it means what you think it means

Ok, I don't want to be painted on either side but if you're gonna pick on someone's choice of words..... I don't think the Israeli's are in anyway a majority in the middle east.

I'm sorry but I read the post you refer back to. He said..

I would have thought you would have drawn the opposite conclusion..? Is he then wrong?
----------
Now back on topic:

I like this a lot since it seems more in line with the definition of a martyr since even in the Muslim communities it is highly debated as to whether a suicide bomber is a martyr and pretty much dismissed as a misuse of the word outside the community.

Ah, but if you noticed I didn't bring up the defination until limejello10512 tried to claim that someone who was using the word correctly was wrong.

Also the last time that I checked, the land of Israel/Palastine /= the entirely of the Middle East.

So unless I missed some really big news item today and that relatively low-grade conflict really flared up into major regional open warfare then I stand by Webster's defination and my stance that it is valid in this case. (Although I am left wondering what the proper term is when a small but more powerful minority engauges in what amounts to Ethnic Cleansing as it was probably technically more correct in the very begining of this conflict, but not anymore.)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The arabs/muslims are far from an ethnic minority and the Isaelies/jews are far from a dominant majority in the region.

Ok, you gave me that one...

The conflict is in fact a regional conflict... Perhaps you've missed the involvement of Syria and Hezbollah (Lebanon), the tunnels bringing weapons in from Egypt or the influence of Iran?

Now if we want to talk about a stated goal of dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity, we can just add Iran to this conversation... but I digress.

Then we'll have to agree to disargee then, because as I've said, the land of Israel/Palastine /= the entirely of the Middle East. Now if you want to start expanding into the larger arena of supporters/proxies and the shifting political alignances of both the region and the world at large then I agree that the term ethnic cleansing no longer applies, the term I'd start using at that point is Cold War, but I personally don't believe that the larger civilazation clash really applies to this discussion at this time.

Partially but not really, as I qualifed my musing with a timestamp of in the very first days of the conflict perhaps a different term was more accurent then ethnic cleansing, but once again I imagine that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Please don't insult my intelligence. If you are going to quote me then at least use entire thoughts instead of deciding to cut right before I qualify my statements. At the moment there isn't regional OPEN warfare going on. Now, I happen to agree that there is a regional/world proxie cold war going on that has a very real chance of flaring into something more serious, but at the moment the Israelie/Palastinian conflict is a relatively minor and low-grade conflict.

Yes, and that would make Iran guilty of at least enspousing ethnic cleansing as well now wouldn't it? (A tyranical government that says and does outragous things, why I've never heard of such a thing.) But reguardless that doesn't excuse Israel from the morality of her actions and also expands the discussion far beyond the actual Israelie/Palastinian conflict which is the crux of the discussion at hand.

For example, we could also expand the discusion futher aboard and into history and talk about how American citizens were a large surporter of terrorism in Ireland via the IRA but I don't really see how that would be any more relavent then the direction in which you are trying to go.

One of the people that I admire the most, Ghandi, said that an eye for an eye will just make the whole World blind. Two wrongs don't make a right and to start comparing and contrasting them according to sides is not useful. One should (assuming one opposes it at all), oppose violence and murder itself, rather than violence and murder on one party's side. There are many Israeli that oppose what is being done to the palestinian people, and the greatest trick of the Israeli government is to pretend to the world that it is synonymous with the jewish people.

As to Israel "getting careless," when was it not? I wont ask what number of children killed and homes destroyed you would accept as a low enough price for killing a "terrorist leader." I put terrorist leader in quotes there because they are your words and I don't think such a term fits all of the many people who have been abducted and imprisoned without trial (hundreds), the elected officials who have been assassinated or the occasional power station that was deliberately destroyed. I would however, ask why you put "their land" in quotes, seeing as it's pretty undisputable how the Palestinian people were driven out.

I have to answer this because it was directed specifically at me. If you're referring to the taking of the city in 638, I'm not aware of a "butchering" of jewish inhabitants. I'm probably not aware of that because Jerusalem, until that time, was a Christian stronghold and Jews were banned from the city so there really weren't any to butcher. However, under islamic rule, Jews were then allowed to return to the city and to practice their religion. Big improvement in my opinion. But none of this is hugely relevant. I can point at hideous crimes on the part of Christians historically, I can point out hideous crimes on the part of Jewish, and unlike you, I can pick out crimes committed by muslim forces. But none of this is relevant to the suffering and injustice that goes on today. No person can be blamed for something that happened before they were born. and when they are, it is usually by a party that wishes to commit or justify some injustice today.

Hate always blinds people. You, me, all of us. To truly understand someone, limits our ability to hate them. I have always found this. Can you imagine what sort of life or experiences would drive you to dress yourself in explosives and murder innocent people? I'm not sure I can. The reason I objected to the witch hunt on the MP that was sacked, which you think is a good thing, is because society seems unable to accept that understanding is different to condoning. But understanding is vital to finding peace. Too often, "suicide bomber" is used as a quick little description that requires no understanding or explanation. Yet there is a whole history and life behind every one. And seeing why someone made such an awful choice helps us see why someone else might, and what might be done to prevent them being driven to that.

She did not. Being British is not the same as being Israeli. But comments of right or wrong should not be based on allegiance, but on principle. If you are against violence as I am, then I have to be against it on all sides, or I am not truly against it, but only against it when it interferes with my goals.

As I say, there is a big difference between self-sacrifice out of love and self-sacrifice out of hatred, and if a mentor spirit is one that supports or portrays a particular mindset, then the examples you give are too different to be in the same portfolio. Someone earlier did say that it could be a good twisted way version though.

I think as written, it would be very difficult to play as there is usually too much self-interest necessary to fit into a standard game and or team. You might want to buy that power focus, but would such a character realistically do that when there is so much good that you could do with that money. You can justify it in various ways, but you need the right environment. After all, you can't say that you need the focus to help you fight the forces of evil if you're only ripping off prototypes for nuyen.

And I think few players would be willing to identify with the mindset. Genuine sacrifice for the greater good is admirable, but someone who goes out looking for ways to harm themselves for other people has a different goal, I think. Historical figures who have made great sacrifices, did so out of necessity, not a psychological desire to be a martyr. IMHO, anyway. I could actually see "Martyr" as being the twisted way version of Pheonix, as Wasabi sort of mentioned. Still wanting heroism and glory, but depressed, troubled and fixed on the idea that their death is the means to it.