The definitions were from Collins English Dictionary - and an expensive dictionary it is too, not some cheap pocket thing. The difference is that you are specifically referring to liberalism as a political affililiation (as stated in your definition) - I am referring to liberalism as a non-political ideology. The redistribution of wealth is a liberal policy simply because it is a progressive policy.
My definition is more along the lines of
conservative=keep traditions, morals, values etc bla bla blah, change what is bad/must be changed, keep the rest.
YOUR definition - which is exactly my point. You move onto shakier ground as soon as you move away from objective definition and take-up a subjective viewpoint. Which traditions? Which morals?
Uh... I'm just trying to point out that some of the ideas that you might want to call "liberal" and you would like to credit to Adam Smith or whomever might actually be older than that, and you can find the core of those ideas in the Bible.
This diference is you're describing a book of ideas whereas I'm talking about actual historical events, when ideas became reality. The act of reform and the instigation of progress - the cornerstones of the liberal movement.
There is a world of difference between Christianity and Islam.
Really? And the Bible has no passages it would rather forget or declare 'not to be taken literally'?
As for the Koran - selectively quote to support your arguments, all you like. But it has some worthy content just like the bible. It has distinct rules of engagement in war, for instance. Women and children must not be harmed. Livestock and crops must be left untouched. The enemy must be armed and willing to fight for a Jihad to be just etc etc.
Apparently anyone who does something "terroristic" is a terrorist and not a soldier? Where does that leave the Nuremberg trials one might ask...were all those German soldiers "terrorists"?
Anyone who uses violence to further a cause could be described as a terrorist, yes. Within war? Depends if you define war to be legalised murder or judicious killing.
Basically ANYONE could be a terrorist...
Basically what you are arguing here is not that the definition is wrong, but that that the definition flies in the face of what we have become accustomed to visualising when we hear the word 'terrorist'? Does that make the definition incorrect though?
Also, a terrorist is especially associated with a politcal cause, as the definition states. A rapist, a bank robber are unlikely to fall into this category. Terror is not the tool, it is a by-product of their actions; the terrorists sole concern is to cause enough terror to draw attention to their cause or further it.
