> In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."
It should go without saying that there’s no single, universally agreed upon definition of anything, thus giving a convenient way to dismiss any inconvenient claims.
Out of curiosity what do you think they should do differently? They confirmed the subject's criminal activity immediately at the top of the article. Only after that do they talk about the definition problem, which you appear to agree with to some degree.
Maybe the problem here is the boiled down ternary, true, not true, mixture. That gets further aggregated until they can same big stats like “Party X made 80% false claims” while the other party only made 20% false claims, because their false claims have been conveniently softened to “mixture.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/
> In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."
It should go without saying that there’s no single, universally agreed upon definition of anything, thus giving a convenient way to dismiss any inconvenient claims.