Subject:
|
Re: jumping to conclusions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 07:56:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1810 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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?
I shall let you think about that... it is full of holes.
> But even with the
> definition you supplied, I wouldn't call the example Fredrik provided
> "terrorism".
Either would I, but I don't know all that much about it.
Scott A
>
> -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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: jumping to conclusions
|
| (...) 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: (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
