From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:40dbfdfb{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
>>Thus by that measure & given global mass media (satellite + internet) +
>>24 hour news channels any act of pol violence which is widely reported
>>would thus be an act of war.
>
>
> Reporting it doesn't make it affect more people.

Of course it does. Were you affected by 9-11? wWere you there? Were you in
Washington near the Pentagon? Were you in the air en route to the US?

> What I'm trying to point out
> is that a single al Qaeda suicide bomber detonating a small bomb in a pizza
> place in NYC is one thing and a single al Qaeda suicide bomber detonating a
> nuclear bomb in the same pizza place in NYC is viewed totally differently.
>

Indeed it is. But the same is true in the mil sphere too. How many
countries have nukes? Most mil people I know don't even think nukes are mil
weapons. Oddly enough they count nukes are terror weapons.

>
>>Ho hum. So was the Kennedy assassination an act of civil war?
>
>
> If it had been a russian assassin would it have been an act of war?
>

But it wasn't. It was a US person so was it an act of civil war?

>
>>>Genocide can be more of a political group than an ethnic group.
>>
>>That's stretching somewhat.
>
>
> Not in the US it's not, to us since we are a mixture instead of an ethnic
group
> it's not so much an ethnic definition.
>

Hohum. You don't even count your treatment of the plain indians as genocide
so given me an example of where a political group/party has been attacked
to the extent which justifies the use oof the word genocide. Heck people
didn't apply that even to the demise of the communists in Indonesia.


>
>>So it would be OK if it was a group of serial killers who "tried" a
>>victim according to rules & crimes they'd just made up?
>
>
> Felons can't be on a jury, so no.
>

Hey noone said they'd been caught & anyway the felons rules is yet
another example of the same thing.

>
>
>>>Huh? Explain that one to me in terms of the American Civil war.
>
>
>>Sherman.
>
>
> conscripts? I still don't get it, you said:
>

Look at the actions of General Sherman. If you ever had a general who
epitomised the terror against the civies methodology it was him.


>
>>>Absolutely incorrect. usually the majority don't want war period. You
>>>gain their "cooperation" often via terror.
>
>
> nobody wants war, but most of the fighters in the civil war made a choice and
> signed up for it. They may not have had a choice of war/nowar but they did
have
> a choice of which side to join and they made that choice.
>

Blimey. (A) you often get press ganging but that's not the major point. The
major point is (B) that in general most people don't want to be involved
& just hope the "war never comes our way". i.e. it's one
thing to "go off to the wars" & quite another for the wars to
come to you.

However  both sides actively want to involve as many people as possible
(& on their side or at least not in opposition).

How do you think an armed force is going to do that Geo?

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5