That is a direct quote, and the official stance of The Washington Post.

I would submit that the word "terrorist" in the thread title is the opinion of the OP, one which I agree with.  The petty carping on semantics in an online chat board simply stuns me. What I found distressing is that it could go on for seven pages, where a number of individuals spend so much effort denigrating the use of the word, based on what they believe is the present meaning, while ignoring the dictionary-based meaning.

What stuns me is how little respect there can be for other opinions.

The thread title was not presented as an opinion, but as a fact.

Facts and opinions are not always the same thing.

I appreciate, that the OP has stated the intention as being an opinion.

During these seven pages, the OP has been kind enough to respond to posts. Those replies generate further interest and replies. That's how it goes on for seven pages.

Since the thread began, I have been following this event in several major publications. Including The Washington Post. My latest posts were not semantics, but a response to the OP's reply to me. That deserved the courtesy of reply, in turn. As your posts have.

The OP's blog link, was not the opinion, or stand of the publication. That needed to be shown.

As I said before, the title of this thread is click bait. Dishonest.

---

@bluecat*poledancing wrote:

Will no one think of the toes let loose in a paddock?

 

Confected outrage at not being able to write someone else's script.

 

The event in the op may not be the same level or form of terrorism that the world has been subjected to but it is open to interpretation. Some of you sound almost disappointed instead of being relieved.

---

I don't understand, what toes?