From: Adam 

Tony Williams wrote:

> Adam > wrote:
>
>> Tony Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Adam > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is hanging onto power through a use of force (& the threat
>>>> thereof) against civies also terrorism? E.g. say Tianamen square?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think terrorism is the word, but it's certainly wrong.
>>>
>>
>> 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?

B) So long as it's internal & state based then it ain't terror(ism)?
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.

So once a gov loses/never bothers to gain any legitimacy what is the above
except terrorism?


>> 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?


>> If you had a mil gov then it would make sense in keeping all targeting
>> concentrated on the mil. However even the US targets civie facilities
>> quite purposefully (e.g. hitting tv/radio stations, phone systems,
>> electric grids etc).
>
>
> I know, and I don't like it one bit. On the other hand, knowing that
> civilians are going to be targeted in any modern war might have reduced
> the number of large scale conflicts.
>

Certainly wrt "counter value" nuke strikes where the whole point
is naked & vast terrorism. Hey find a city....with more than X civie
inhabitants. Now threaten them with destruction & foul injuries if they
decide upon a political path you disagree with....

Gosh that sounds familiar.


>>
>> Oh noone doubts that while the SU was there lots of attention was on
>> Afghanistan. It's the period between the last SU troops leaving &
>> 9-11-2001 when noone gave a sh*t.
>
>
> Ok, you got me. I simply didn't follow what was going on there. In fact,
> I'd never even heard of OBL and Al-Qaeda until after 9/11. Possibly due
> to being in the US, where foreign news isn't very well reported.
>

Yup. It's why I was so pissed off at the whole Iraq mistake. If they'd
concentrated on Afghaistan the US could have done a vast amount of good
& could have helped to improve not just the middle east but southern &
central asia as well.

Bt hey along comes...Iraq & once more Afghanistan wanders off to the
background to be quietly semi-forgotten.

Adam

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