Yep. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. You literally agree that both words have implied meanings related to state of innocence of the subject. But for some reason are writing your responses like you disagree.

Or, I think you’re just really bad with relationships of vocabulary. When I said “implied meanings related to innocence” I am talking both about how

arrest: implies that the subject may not be innocent or may be innocent. It is not conclusive and has room for doubt. It implies there is some reason to believe that evidence may exist for guilt. But it is by no means concluding anything solid. The SUBJECT of the sentence is where more meaning is derived. Saying the pedophile was arrested implies guilt. The person is being labeled conclusively as a criminal. It’s also indicating that the subject doing the action (arresting) is a valid authority. Saying Greta was arrested does not imply guilt so strongly. She is not being labeled with the adjective of a criminal. But it still indicates the subject doing the action of arrest has authority to do the arrest. Which in the case of Israel they do not.

Kidnapped: implies the subject is absolutely innocent. It’s a much stronger word to use and SHOULD have been used to describe the situation of the flotillas.

You for some reason want to default to using kidnapped for ALL situations? A very conclusive word that implies absolute innocence of the subject being acted on, and absolute guilt of the subject doing the action? Yeah, no, kidnapped is a very strong conclusive word. And it’s WHY it should be used to describe the flotilla kidnappings. Because it’s a very clear case of who is at fault and who is innocent.

But to use that in all situations is just absolutely stupid. You don’t understand the English language if you think that.

If you’re looking for a neutral word to describe the act. There is already a word for that. It’s took.