From: "Geo." 

"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. 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.

> 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?

> > 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.

> 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.


> > Huh? Explain that one to me in terms of the American Civil war.

> Sherman.

conscripts? I still don't get it, you said:

>>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.

Geo.

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