I was repeating what I understood your argument to be. You argued that the terrorists on 9-11 'murdered people randomly', while abortion clinic bombers didn't, therefore one was terrorism and one wasn't. I countered that neither was random: in both cases the targets were chosen to send a message.
You also asserted that "Labeling a tax protester an enemy of America is an admission of whose side you are on", and I affirmed that I am on the side that does not crash planes into buildings on purpose. If one would like to carry around signs and have rallies on the Mall, I might disagree with your position, but I agree you have those rights. You do not have the right to crash planes into buildings without permission*. I also wouldn't call someone that reckless an 'enemy' when the word 'criminal' works fine.
* I mean, I could imagine that one might wish to test building designs by flying drones into them. In which case, there better be a lot of precautions taken for safety. Or I guess you could build an airfield and buildings on your own land and fly planes into your buildings all you want if you don't hurt anyone.
no subject
You also asserted that "Labeling a tax protester an enemy of America is an admission of whose side you are on", and I affirmed that I am on the side that does not crash planes into buildings on purpose. If one would like to carry around signs and have rallies on the Mall, I might disagree with your position, but I agree you have those rights. You do not have the right to crash planes into buildings without permission*. I also wouldn't call someone that reckless an 'enemy' when the word 'criminal' works fine.
* I mean, I could imagine that one might wish to test building designs by flying drones into them. In which case, there better be a lot of precautions taken for safety. Or I guess you could build an airfield and buildings on your own land and fly planes into your buildings all you want if you don't hurt anyone.