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

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?

>>
>>>> How about Ho Chi Minh? etc.etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my mind it comes down to attacking civilians, with or without
>>> warning. That's wrong, no matter the cause.
>>>
>>
>> So the US are terrorists? The sites attacked in Iraq under shock & awe
>> were mostly civie gov places & there were lots of examples of a
>> willingness to take civie places with a high likelihood of civie deaths.
>
>
> To a certain extent, yes, but making civilians a primary target is
> different to being unconcerned about collateral damage and casualties.
> One is directly evil, the other is criminally negligent.
>

Your president is a civie & yet he orders troops to kill people etc.
Your voters who vote in your gov are civies etc.

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).

The doctrine of systemic warfare requires it. i.e. you see the opposing
state as a system to be reduced & that includes lots of civie vital
services (e.g. electric supply (strands of carbon fibre spat out of a
cruise missile) (sub-e.g. to hospitals)).

>>
>>>> 3K US people killed & look at the changes vs 20K
Afghans killed &
>>>> millions driven into exile & noone gave a sh*t.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I care, and I'm sure a lot of others do too.
>>>
>>
>> I'd love to believe you. I'm sure you do now. I'm not so sure prior to
>> 9-11
>
>
> You mean like when the USSR was attacking Afghanistan in the '80s? I've
> never been much of an activist so maybe I don't care *enough*, but where
> I was aware I was opposed.
>

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.

Adam

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