From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

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