Definition of terrorism

[Kyuuketsuki]

Giff,

I am not even going to argue this with you making it personal ... it's fucking stupid! Of course it would not be alright as far as I'm concerned, it's never alright to lose someone or to die yourself but life's a bitch and shit happens! Whether or not people want to live, their relatives live and whether they would be upset at the loss is not the issue, it's a numbers game pure and simple.

TBBH I think asking those questions the way you did doesn't serve to further the debate and if you do it again I am backing out.

[MEGAPHONE] IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS ME OUT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER CONVERSATION FEEL FREE TO BRING MY FAMILY INTO IT AND I'M DONE! SURE WAY TO AN EASY VICTORY![/MEGAPHONE]

I will deal with the other non-personal ones.

I think Gandhi's method was a very good one though he wasn't a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination and like I said earlier the only reason people can be pacifist is because someone else carries the responsibility to allow them the freedom to do so, someone else stands the watch so I'm afraid violence (or threat of force) is exactly what guarantees the peace. Even the police and law courts are a form of force (implicit or potential violence) and they control public behaviour and assure people of their "rights". Governments of course, couldn't govern without the courts, the police and the armed forces to back them up if required.

It's ALL about force (potential violence)!

Here in sweden do we have nearly no military and police is not allowed to use force. We function as a country decpite that. Also a goverment that rule with force will never last, just look at nazi germany or the Svoiet union. Force can never control people in the long run.

Restraining someone (as the police of ANY country have to is still use of force) and Sweden apparently has a higher ratio of armed personnel (about 3.3%) to civilian than the UK (< 1%) and I would absolutely, most certainly say that we have a very capable set of armed forces. I'm not saying a government rules with forces nor likening them to a dictatorship (I'm not specifically anti-dictatorships anyway just the wrong type ... oh people will love that) I'm saying that EVERY government, even if it governs with the consent of the people and changes democratically every x years, still uses force, people get punished by the legal system (being locked up, being restrained in any way is still force it's simply force applied for the greater good) and armed forces are still under political control. And what is one key role of any elected government? To protect its electorate from all enemies foreign and domestic ... in other words those forces potentially can be used against its own people.

Kyu