Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:31:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1565 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > I use the term "terrorism" as the specific, random targeting of civilians for
> > the purpose of terrorizing them. Notice I don't even mention intent other than
> > to terrorize. There is no rationality behind terrorism beyond terrorizing. It
> > is irrational.
>
> Let's just stick to the normal usage/definition of words... not your
> distorted definition.
What part of my definition would you consider a distortion? But even with the
definition you supplied, I wouldn't call the example Fredrik provided
"terrorism".
-John
I think this is pretty good:
>
> "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or
> property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or
> any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (FBI)
>
>
> Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) Let's just stick to the normal usage/definition of words... not your distorted definition. I think this is pretty good: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
