Truth is a difficult thing for you... That is, unfortunate. I have doubled my post count in just this thread, and most of that was getting you to agree to a dictionary term. But what ever. Par for course. /rollAnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:50 pmNo time at all, I said the websters definition was ok and you accepted it. Then you demonstrated 3 separate ways you subjectively interpret it for application. You assess the level of criminality, the proportion of the group involved in the criminality and whether or not you personaly support their aims in deciding whether or not a particular group fits your personal defintion of terrorist. You have explicitly admitted all this already, I am happy to keep quoting you doing so if you want to pretend you did not.Cassandros wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 5:13 pm
How long did it take us to come to an accord on the Websters definitions of terrorist?
Neither of us can just add new elements to that definition mid-discussion. Law enforcement and alphabet soup agencies do not follow dictionary definitions- and barely even follow their own guidelines when labeling people or groups. So, you trying to include them in the discussion is trying to move the goal post on the sly. And we are in a 'no touching the goal posts' zone.
It is not fair to judge an entire group based on a minority. We don't accuse an entire lacrosse team as rapists because a few members get (falsely) accused, so we can't judge the entire Hong Kong Protest based on violence of a small (~1%) percent, even if that fringe violent group started using bombs.
What is happening in Hong Kong is very different than what antifa does day to day. They actively label everyone antifa disagrees with as 'nazis' and there modus operandi is to 'attack nazis'. There is no discernment with antifa- they will terrorize young and old in the attempt to shut down any speech they disagree with.
So, clearly you can see how one group fully fits with the agreed upon term terrorists and the other group does not.
Shame you can never admit to it.
Law enforcement agencies actually do follow strict definitions, that's how the judicial system works, you silly lying dimwit.
ISIS came about, when, 2004? Yet in 2015 ISIS was Not labeled a Terrorist Group. Maybe because a lot of definitions used by governments are titles, not definitions- and thus carry different weights?
I know you know this, and I know you will again play coy.
Fact of the matter: you want to claim antifa = Hong Kong protesters. Acting as if one is dictionarily a terrorist- then both are. You are wrong. Even though the other day a Hong Kong protestors used a bomb against police- something you insist is a requirement to be labeled 'terrorist'- and I still contend that the entire protest cannot be judged by the content of ~1% of its people.
Now, if the ~1% of the Hong Kong protestors started identifying at 'antiCM' (anti China Mainland) or some other moniker that identifies them as their own movement- and that movement emulated the activities of antifa where the bulk of the group goes out of their way to silence and intimidate anyone they disagree with. THEN, yes, I and others should call that group (like antifa) terrorist.