From: Tony Williams 

A lot of food for thought there.

I'm going to punt on this topic for the time being though; as soon as you
start to analyse specific cases it becomes clear that every situation is
unique and has a different appropriate response. I'll stick with the
principle that attacking civilians is wrong and to be avoided wherever
possible.

--
Tony

Adam > wrote:
> Tony Williams wrote:
>
>>>>>So if your gov is a civie gov but run through force
& violence & threat
>>>>>(e.g. say the apartheid gov in SA or indeed the PRC
gov) then you can
>>>>>not do anything against them in order to get rid of the gov?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's not what I was saying. Oppression is wrong and it's ok to
>>>>resist it, but it's not terrorism.
>>>>
>>>
>>>A) Resist how?
>>
>>
>>There's no single answer to that; it depends entirely on the circumstances.
>>
>
>
> Does that include "revolutionary warfare"? (I know it's an
old term but
> I'm a traditionalist).
>
> E.g. given the "power base" of a pol is at the end of the day a large
> number of civies who support him possibly even tacitly (e.g. SA white
> people who were quite happy with apartheid) then surely in the case of a
> deeply violent & terror using gov with no legitimacy except for the
> violence & terror.....
>
> Equally wrt external threat, if a foreign civie orders some death &
> destruction fed-ex'ed to you & you civies, you surely can thus target
> other civies of the same nationality as your attacker.
>
> Is an active defence a right of a citizen? I.e. if attacked, go out
> there & touch your enemy at home?
>
>
>>>B) So long as it's internal & state based then it ain't terror(ism)?
>>
>>
>>The way I understand the words, that would be oppression not terrorism.
>>
>
>
> Chuckle. It's ye olde "evil terrorist mastermind" >
"Hello Mr President".
>
> How about the occupation of a foriegn county?
>
>
>
>>>Heck Pol Pot might have disagreed with you as might those who survived
>>>the killing fields. Ditto those who lived through Mao's Guards running
>>>amok in the great leap forward etc.
>>>
>>>The Gov's job is to apply force & violence to civilians. IIt's called
>>>control & can range from being able to execute them on whim
to forcing
>>>them to give you all their worldly posessions under threat.
>>
>>
>>It isn't their job, but in a poorly designed state then they certainly
>>have that capability.
>>
>
>
> It is the job of the state to enforce their monopoly on violence &
> threat to the civies.
>
>
>>>So once a gov loses/never bothers to gain any legitimacy what is the
>>>above except terrorism?
>>
>>
>>Oppression. That's one reason we have the UN, to prevent rogue
>>governments from oppressing their citizens. Shame it doesn't always work
>>very well.
>>
>
>
> FIne so the response to that is always a gandhian one? & When that
> doesn't work coz the relevant Gandhi gets shot/imprisoned etc?
>
>
>>>>>Your president is a civie & yet he orders troops to
kill people etc.
>>>>>Your voters who vote in your gov are civies etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not my president; I'm still British and don't get to vote over here
>>>>(fine by me - I'm a guest here and if I dislike it enough then I can
>>>>always leave).
>>>
>>>
>>>OK. The PM is a civie. Was the IRA mortaring Downing Street a strike
>>>at a miliary Command & Control Center (C3) or terrorism
against civies?
>>
>>
>>Is the PM truly a civilian, or does control of the armed forces come
>>with the job? Come to think of it, should there be a distinction made
>>between civilians and civil servants? I reckon this is one of those
>>attacks that doesn't fall neatly into either category. Maybe it depends
>>on which organisation is firing the mortars. To put it another way: I
>>don't know.
>>
>
>
> The deep level org decision in most countries is to make sure that the
> mil is for external threats & the ones giving the orders to the mil are
> civies.
>
> So attacking the mil because of the orders of the civies seems to be
> missing the real target.
>
> Adam

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