From: Tony Williams 

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.

> 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).

> 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.

>
> 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.

--
Tony

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