Quote:
|
That is not an opinion, it's a matter of definition. If you call that a "technicality", we could call *everything* a technicality.
|
Your statement is funny, because several people argued with me already in this thread that the navy was ok in denying that napalm was used in iraq because "technically" they had changed the name of napalm to "fuel gel".
I clearly said that my opinion differs from that of the UN. I am free to call napalm a chemical weapon just as the Navy is free to call napalm "fuel gel". Your opinion differs. The term "chemical weapon" isn't like 2+2=5, it's just a made up term defined by a UN committee.
A friend of mine said once that when an argument reaches the point of people arguing about linguistics and grammar and word origins, it's time to stop.
