Im not a troll you just do not seem to understand how to have a discussion.

Your source only talks about Israelis training Americans. It never mentions at any point Americans training Israelis

You literally suggest Americans trained Israelis and now that isn’t true you are claiming you said the opposite.

Am I serious about the diversity of the UK being a result of the empire’s invasion of foreign lands? Yes that is almost the whole reason why the UK is diverse.

Would “forced diversity” be code for “historic British Imperialism”? Because that is why the UK is diverse. They murdered and enslaved their way to diversity.

There is also ones for other languages.

Regardless the point is a dictionary does not define words but rather describes how they are used. Even if it covered national militaries, which it does not, it wouldn’t support your claim. In fact it would be an “appeal to authority”

You’ll note nowhere on that list of synonyms are terms used for militaries. That’s not by accident. It’s because national militaries aren’t terrorist groups.

Ok but your example is the reverse situation where the Israelis are training American police after the US police crossed too many lines. So this isn’t an example of the US training Israel to be more brutal but rather the Israelis theoretically training them to be less.

First you didn’t not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren’t authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.

No we were an invading army

Except they are. Terrorists are non-state organizations.

You should not list off rhetorical fallacies as a response unless you are certain you understand them. You have been incorrect about both.

The example of the GOP is not a straw man as it is an identical situation to the Nazis in that the targeted group also has members within the group. You don’t know what a straw man argument is and you proved it here.

You should probably stop here since you haven’t provided any evidence that supports your claims while simultaneously showing a startlingly poor understanding of reasoning.

And I would have fucked a few pro wrestlers if I had the option.

Ok but that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact they targeted Catholics. The GOP has gay members yet it is 100% accurate to say the GOP does not believe gay people should have equal rights with straight people, so even though the GOP is targeting gay people they still have gay members.

Catholics being part of the Nazi party doesn’t have the significance you think it does.

As n aside why are you calling them anything other than the Nazi party? I get NSDAP was the name they preferred but why grant Nazis respect?

What does arguing pedantics mean? Note pedantics isn’t a word.

Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.

No it isn’t. When you go after a Church to limit its voice in society you are attacking the faithful. Targeting the church IS going after Catholics.

Extremely unlikely we are doing any of those things. US textiles are fairly expensive compared to almost all nations and there would be no reason to have US police training Israeli police since they follow different standards and do not encounter similar crime.

No, it was a WWF/WWE wrestling program so it’s not intentionally gay porn but could be used for those purposes.

They literally targeted Roman Catholics because the feared they wouldn’t be loyal to the state.

*for now…