dpbsmith@verizon.net wrote:
I don't regard a dictionary as holy writ, and I don't have any illusions that using one will settle these disputes, but I really do wish, when conducting arguments--particularly in writing via email--that contenders would resort more to the dictionary, at least as a starting point, for defining terms.
For example:
Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Terrorist: "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism."
Not an answer, not unambiguous, not unchallengable, but a starting point.
I'm not contesting your input, I don't even follow the dispute, I just think it's funny to notice that corroborating the definition above with the subjective point of view (who determines what's unlawful?), the whole of US were terrorists *by the book* in regards to the old Iraqui regime. The eye of the beholder...
--Gutza