• sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Great!

      I am glad you agree that by your (the FBI’s current) definition, most police in the US are terrorists, every President going back to at least JFK is a terrorist, everyone who violently resisted the Nazis were terrorists, and every single protest everywhere, ever, that has involved any single member of that protest being charged with resisting arrest has also been terrorism.

      • Ulrich@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I didn’t agree with any of that but I won’t disagree either.

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          You said ‘we are in agreement’ to my last post in this thread, and my last post in this thread pointed out that all of those scenarios are terrorism with the definition that you chose as ‘pretty much the definition of terrorism’.

          So yes, you did agree.

          But now you don’t agree, but also do not disagree.

          … Could it possibly be the case that the definition of terrorism you chose is a bit too broad?

          • Ulrich@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 hours ago

            You said ‘we are in agreement’

            I was extremely specific as to what I was agreeing with, as you well know, but now are trying to intentionally misrepresent the situation in bad faith, which is typically my cue to peace out so, peace ✌️