I got the dictionary definition for you as a favor and this how you respond?
If you had remained civil a while longer, I could explain to you why your dictionary.com definition is quite correct and does not apply to Saddam, whose atrocities as head of state, using state powers (i.e. military & arms), and against the citizens of the country he ruled were "state terror", not "terrorism". Start by looking up for yourself what "unlawful use of force" means and why it is not a term that applies to the head of state directing his military.
As I've often pointed out, you can give it but you can't take it
Not really. If I cared to lower myself to your level, there would be quite a few remarks I could make about what you "suck at" and where, not to mention your apparent level of mental capacity and its sad level of (un)cultivation.
But I don't. So, you see, I don't "give it".
But you are right in one observation - I "can't take it". The "it" here being the petty little personal attacks your debating style deteriorates into, frequently, as you run out of ammo and don't have anything left that anyone might possibly mistake for rational argument about the subject at hand.
And we are right there.
Have a good day. |
