From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:

> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:40d950eb$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
>>>You find war really terrifying because it involves more people,
not because
>>>it's more terrifying.
>>>
>>
>>Not true. Which would you find more scary in your town, a single bomb
>>every couple of months of so or 2 solid forces fighting for each & every
>>house including yours using all the modern weaponery short of WMD?
>
>
> 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.

Right now people are being killed in various nasty ways in places like the
Congo, but because the likelihood of it involving you & yours is
approaching 0 then are you worried?

>
>
>>The aims & methods of political violence (& it's threat) are the same
>>whether enacted by a group or a state.
>
>
> or one man? (it's the "& it's threat" part I don't agree with)
>

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.

> As but one example, the beheadings are all over the news yet the dozens of
> other murders around the globe yesterday hardly get mentioned. I mean (and
this
> is going to sound cold) I watch this on the news and I'm saying to myself,
big
> deal they killed 3 innocents, we kill more innocents by mistake.
>

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


> If what you say were true, if we were the same as terrorists, then we
wouldn't
> be fighting this the way we are, after the first beheading we would have gone
> out into the desert near falluja and detonated a fairly small nuclear bomb
> which knocked out electronics, broke windows and rattled houses across the
area
> and then said, are you really ready for this.. and if they said fu then drop
> another on falluja and move to the next problem area.
>

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?

> THAT would be state terrorism, not publishing documents that show the limits
> (short of torture) that you are allowing your armed forces and intelligence
to
> go to. There is nothing scary about us.
>

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.

The invasion of Iraq was political violence. There is no doubt about that.
The only question is where, when & how is political violence
acceptable.

Internal to a state it is generally assumed that the state has the monopoly
on political violence (e.g. police/secret police, court ordered violence
(e.g. execution) etc) in order to keep order (i.e. do wrong, get caught,
get punished). The problems come when you step outside of that (i.e.
extra-territorial 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".

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

Adam

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