From: Tony Williams 

Adam wrote:
> 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?

There's no single answer to that; it depends entirely on the circumstances.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>>> 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.

--
Tony

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