From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:
> "Monte Davis"  wrote in message
> news:d5kqd09cna0n2j0e515so7bbncb33t9epq{at}4ax.com...
>
>
>>Umm-- I think Adam's painting himself into a corner with sharp
>>definitions in a blurry realm. I was simply supplying some American
>>examples of "terrorizing those who don't support you into supporting
>>you."
>
>
> But I've got a sharp definition, war is when the motivating factor is a real
> risk that the other side could kill all of you (a real risk of conquest by
> force), terrorism is when the motivating factor is a fear that the other side
> could kill some small percentage of you (no risk of conquest by force).
>

Poor definiton. What if the aim of a terrorist org was to take political
control of your (& their) state ? e.g ZANU were terrorists in Rhodesia
but are the Gov in Zimbabwe. Equally the ANC are now the gov of South
Africa. Is taking political control of a state via acts of political
violence the same as "conquest by force"?

> Now that's not to say there is no blurry realm, because somewhere between
> Kansas City and NYC you go from being one to the other.
>

Humm. So you say.

Adam

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