From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:

> "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?
>

If in WW2 I had been say a Brazilian or Argentine farmer or a mexican
peasant or etc. etc. then no not at all. If you're talking about a
widescale nuclear exchange, then the "action" may actually be
taken by only a very few people + a load of automated systems.

It might affect a lot of people but be carried out by very few.

>
>>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?
>
>

I'd be worried coz there's a % chance I'd be one of the drunk drivers were
I forced to drive. However yes I do worry on various days & esp at
various times (e.g. just before & after pub closing time).



>
>>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..
>

So hitting the pentagon & other symbols of US gov weren't? i.e. if the
other plane had managed to get to target & the congress or whitehouse
was now in the same state as the WTC but with few(er) casualties then that
wouldn't be an act of war?

i.e. if the WTC had come down slowly (i.e. post evacuation of those who
could be evacutated) but the whitehouse had been totalled then that would
not have got your attention?

>
>>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.
>

Not to be picky but what do you think genocide means? Ethnic cleansing is
to move the population of your enemy out of a given area/ off a given piece
of land (dead or alive). A Nuke will do that.


>
>>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?
>

The Law.

To give an obviousl example what is the difference between a state
executioner & a serial killer?


>
>>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 on a large proportion of the population who want no part in any war
or either side (which is the norm).

For one thing in a civil war one side is "the government" with
"an army"
& the other side are insurgents/rebels/terrorists.



> 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.

Absolutely incorrect. usually the majority don't want war period. You gain
their "cooperation" often via terror. It is a std dictum of a
civil war that the main target is to terrorise those who don't support you
into supporting you.

> 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.
>

Not true.

>
>
>>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 )
>

 You terrorise people. A country is just a bit of land & it's hard to
scare grantite, sand, clay, limestone etc.

Your aim is people & their minds.

>
>>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.
>

It comes down to "legal authority". As an easy example look at
your own declaration of independence & the lengths the
"rebels" went to to justify why the legal authority (i.e. the
king) was no longer the legal authority because he had broken his social
contract with "the people".

It forms the vast bulk of the document. Look for the bits following
"To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World."

e.g.:

"WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one
People to dissolve the Political Bands, which have connected them with
another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and
equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them,
a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should
declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation."

& then:


"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such
Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long
established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and
Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such
is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History
of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the
Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let
Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the
public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to
them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodations of large Districts
of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation
in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyranny
only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole
Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly
Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to
be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have
returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in
the mean Time, exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and
Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that
Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to
pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the
Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to
Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone; for the Tenure of their
Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of
Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the
Consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the
Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our
Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their
Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which
they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries,
so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing
the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with
Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection,
and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and
destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to
complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with
Circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our Fellow-Citizens, taken Captive on the high Seas, to
bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their
Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrection amongst us, and has endeavoured to
bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,
whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all
Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.

IN every Stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the
most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every Act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have
warned them, from Time to Time, of Attempts by their Legislature to extend
an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to
their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties
of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably
interrupt our Connexions and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the
Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the
Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the
Rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. "

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