"A nation's practice or policy of territorial or economic expansion"

And another one.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/expansionist

and still nothing about whether said territory is in fact being claimed after first having been lost

"related to increasing the amount of land ruled by a country"

And another one.

fascinating

you're really pretending that clause doesn't matter

The previous state does not matter <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

yes, it really does

Expansionism is an act <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

An act of increasing the nations land

LOL

Ones generally that have been agreed upon internationally

As shown through those definitions.

you keep saying that as if the definitions take the context into account

is english your first language?

They don't need to take the context into account

No, Norwegen

>definition don't need to take definitions into account
A, yes, they kinda do,
B, if they don't what the fuck's the point of saying "they all say the same thing"

"Expansionism" is an act. An act of expanding the land of a country.

If you practice expansionism, then you're an expansionist.

if that country already had that land and lost it, taking it back isn't a fucking expansion, jesus christ

Syria wanting to take the Golan Heights means doing that act.

Of expanding the land of their country.

That is expansionism

BY DEFINITION

LITERALLY BY DEFINITION

<:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

You can't even disagree with it. It's literally the definition.

And I've shown you that

yes, I absolutely can, because none of your definitions are disproving my argument

you're just pretending my argument doesn't exist

Your argument is just straight false.

And I've shown that

Through those definitions

How can you argue against internationally agreed upon agreements?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE8Hr8jV9dU - The Jimmy Dore Show - FBI & CIA Implementing Coup On Trump?

Again. Expansionism is an act, the act of expanding ones controlled land. Retaking lost land, is expanding your controlled land. Thus is expansionist.

you haven't shown jack shit, you've literally avoided directly addressing my argument, and shown sources that explicity avoid the basis of my argument. How the fuck do you expect to disprove what you actively avoid addressing?

Again. Expansionism is an act, the act of expanding ones controlled land. Retaking lost land, is expanding your controlled land. Thus is expansionist.