From: "Geo." 

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in
message news:40d96dd5{at}w3.nls.net...

> > Are you trying to prove my point? which involves more people?
> >
>
> It's not number of people per se it's the % chance of it involving you
> &/or yours.

The number of people involved raises the chance of it involving you and
yours. Are you worried about being injured because of the congo? No, but
turn that into a world war and are you worried?

> Or one man. Again, the threat is to you & yours. I'm not at all vexed or
> worried about bad driving when me & mine are sat in buildings some
> distance from the roads. When I'm on the road & some bad driver is
> directly threatening me with his poor vehicular control then I get
> emotionally involved.

Yes, but do you worry about having to drive somewhere if it's tuesday
morning or new years eve? Could that be because there are more drunk
drivers out on new years eve?


> Yup. Ditto. & is it "scary" / terrorising to you that
some SK person has
> just been beheaded in Iraq?

No not at all, in fact blowing up a building in Kansas City and killing 200
people didn't bother me much. BUT crashing 4 planes into NYC and killing
3000 people, that made me sit up and notice. For me that crossed the line
from terrorism to an act of war simply because of the numbers..

> Nope. Coz that wouldn't be terrorism, it would be ethnic cleansing (&
> indeed the threat of ethnic cleansing). Were the jews on the cattle
> trucks headed for belsen victims of terrorism or something else?

Dropping a nuke is not ethnic cleansing, it kills everyone not just one
ethnic group. Genocide maybe, ethnic cleansing no.

> If only that were true. The reality is that political violence is
> political violence & you are supposed to "fear for your life
& those of
> those dear to you" in order to comply with the wishes/orders of those
> commiting/threatening to commit the violence. How come the US troops get
> to say who does what in Baghdad? Gee it's coz they have guns & may enact
> acts of violence upon you if you do not comply.

Oh really, so then what's the difference between a police act and political violence?

> It's the old freedom fighter/terrorist liberation/occupation
> sucrity/oppression thing i.e. my law & order is your
> oppression/political/state violence & your "resistance to
oppression" is
> my "unacceptable terrorism".

I don't agree, a civil war is not terrorism. It is a civil war, it is
different from terrorism in that it does not attempt to gain cooperation
thru terror but instead it is conquest by force. War is like a fist fight,
terrorism is like not fighting but instead threating your opponents
families lives. Or to compare it to games, it's like the difference between
arm wrestling and poker.


> Or as I keep repeating....a man who steals a melon is a thief, a man who
> steals a kingdon is a king.

Ok I can terrorize a kingdom, but I want to see you terrorize a melon. (if
you repeat that again I'm going to terrorize YOU with a melon )

> If AQ unified Iraq, Saudi, Jordan & Egypt
> into a "Caliphate" (along with say the Gulf States & say
yemen) then you
> rpresident of the time would be welcoming the "Caliphate foreign
> minister" even if that bod is currently one of those being hunted/hiding
> out in Afganistan.

Yah, sort of like we had to welcome Saddam.. and if Saddam escapes and
becomes king of the world then we'll have to welcome him more (or we could
just kill him because a man who steals the world is a king) You know this
works both ways and really has nothing to do with the methods you use to
steal the world.

Geo.

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