Definition of terrorism

[Giff]

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%)

That might have to do with that police in sweden is allowed to have guns, Which they dont have in britain. If it's about soldiers do certainly have less then 1%.

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.

They punish those who have commited a a crime, even if someone violate the human rights for an example. It's justice not controlling the population with force. It sounds nearly medieval to me as they rule with an iron fist. My ocuntries armed forced are just doing missions which is related to the UN. They can also never be used inside the control unless there are an invasion.

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.

A elected goverment is not for protecting. Atleast not where I live. It's elected to take care humanitarian questions, healthcare, economy and school. Also Swedens goverment is also very fund of co-operate and helping other countries, specially ecnomical but also humanitarian question. It's not made to protect, its' made to serve it's people. We also don't have any enemies.

The question I asked you wasn't intended to be personal, it ws mainly to be hypothetical question. But I take it back.

Instead if we look at it this way. If it was USA who attacked a marine base in Japan, then the american would be conicered to have executed a strategical good plan. If not heroric. Then if the Japan would attack a city in america and bomb it with a nucelar bomb, then that would be regarded as the greatest war crime ever. Also concidered to be state terrorism and those who justify the Hiroshima ombings now wouldn't justify if Japan have done the same attack against a city in the USA.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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%)

That might have to do with that police in sweden is allowed to have guns, Which they dont have in britain. If it's about soldiers do certainly have less then 1%.

Go look it up, the Swedish armed forces have 330,000 personnel, 10 million population, the UK has 465,000, 60 million population.

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.

They punish those who have commited a a crime, even if someone violate the human rights for an example. It's justice not controlling the population with force. It sounds nearly medieval to me as they rule with an iron fist. My ocuntries armed forced are just doing missions which is related to the UN. They can also never be used inside the control unless there are an invasion.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, restraining someone, locking them in a jail cell or whatever ... it is still the application of force.

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.

A elected goverment is not for protecting. Atleast not where I live. It's elected to take care humanitarian questions, healthcare, economy and school. Also Swedens goverment is also very fund of co-operate and helping other countries, specially ecnomical but also humanitarian question. It's not made to protect, its' made to serve it's people. We also don't have any enemies.

Every government has to protect its people ... it's part of what every electorate requires of them. Granted you lot may be a bit more independent that some but the basic requirements of an electorate are broadly speaking the same.

If it was USA who attacked a marine base in Japan, then the american would be conicered to have executed a strategical good plan. If not heroric. Then if the Japan would attack a city in america and bomb it with a nucelar bomb, then that would be regarded as the greatest war crime ever. Also concidered to be state terrorism and those who justify the Hiroshima ombings now wouldn't justify if Japan have done the same attack against a city in the USA.

Who cares, that isn't what happened.

Kyu

[Giff]

Go look it up, the Swedish armed forces have 330,000 personnel, 10 million population, the UK has 465,000, 60 million population.

Don't know where get the numbers from. Our milityary, Försvarsmakten have 700 in deployed personal.

At present Sweden can mobilize a force consisting of 4,500 officers, 18,000 conscripts, 262,000 in the reserve and 37,000 Homeguards Home Guard. Full mobilisation is assumed to take one year (although no mobilisation readiness exists), and the formations assumed are of battalion or battle group level. Of these, 2,700 officers and 7,000.

262 000 in reserve do I not concider as armed forces since they will used if an invasion is happening.

As I said that's the only time the military is used besides foregin operation with the UN. Which the 700 is used for.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, restraining someone, locking them in a jail cell or whatever ... it is still the application of force.

May be, but its not used to scare it people in to obidience. Also everyoinbe is equal to the law, thjat include the govement that also can be punished by the legal system. They can't use tas a tool to control the country.

Every government has to protect its people ... it's part of what every electorate requires of them. Granted you lot may be a bit more independent that some but the basic requirements of an electorate are broadly speaking the same.

Yes of course they should protect their people. But not to that degree that the goverment is geting paranoid. But I get your point, what you mean. Although I think the goverment have more responisbilty then just primary protect it's people. Also what should they protect them from?

[quopte]Who cares, that isn't what happened. [/quote]

No, it didn't. But if the Hiroshima bomb where the other way around then those who justify the attack wouldn't justify it.

Also it's not the ultimate objective that's decide if something is terrorism. It's the acts objective that says if something is terrosim or some sort of terrorism, but most importenly it's the victims who decide whether or not it's terrorism.

The bjective of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was to kill people and create fair. That the ultimate goal was to make Japan surrender i irrelevent. It's the act and pupose of it that is relevent and it's was to kill and create fair.

Also nuclear weopen is an unethical weapon. THe damage it makes is horrible and have deadly affect over a long period of time.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Giff ... those are the numbers I have (Wikipedia I believe ... I'm lazy) and I used the same source for the UK ones. If you have a problem with the figures please stop with the denials and give me a source that corroborates your view.

I disagree with you over force and restraint for reasons already given (restraint is still force like it or not) and I would say that governments would consider law and the penal system a vital aspect of control for any large population.

I do not accept that the dropping of the first 2 atomic bombs equated to state terrorism (again for reasons already given) nor do I consider the atomic bomb to be any more or less ethical than any other weapon (more dangerous yes, more consideration needed before use yes but some of the now known effects of such weapons were not known at the time those first two were dropped). Oh and someone mentioned the Japanese emperor's part in surrendering for his people ... I believe I am correct in saying he had no part in it, it was the military who surrendered and it is also possible that the use of the bombs might have allowed the Japanese to surrender and save face (the Japanese not being the kind of people that could easily surrender) because not only were they already losing the war to the US (it's probably an exaggeration but the Japanese knew that for every plane they could build the US was capable of building an entire aircraft carrier), but Marshal Zhukov had already wiped all their forces from the Chinese mainland taking no prisoners (and I'm sure you know what I mean by that) and was building a fleet of boats that would land, if I have my numbers correct, something like 750,000 soldiers in Northern Japan ... the Japanese knew what that would mean and ending the war would stop Zhukov and his Japan-friendly army.

I suppose the victims can decide that if they wish but no, I do not accept that they define it for everyone else's POV.

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@kyu

I disagree with you over force and restraint for reasons already given (restraint is still force like it or not)

Your view is an opinion not fact, albeit one I share as I accept the conflict theory of power. Advocates of the consensus view of power would not necessarily agree. Such people seem to be in the majority in democratic style societies. (ignoring the amount of force often needed to effect major social change)

[Giff]

Giff ... those are the numbers I have (Wikipedia I believe ... I'm lazy) and I used the same source for the UK ones. If you have a problem with the figures please stop with the denials and give me a source that corroborates your view.

This is the militray defence of swedens homepage in english
http://www.mil.se/en/About-the-Armed-For...n-figures/

Approximately 20,000 regular officers and civilian employees
work for the Swedish Armed Forces. By 2008, this number
will have fallen by about 4,000 people as a result of Defence
Resolution 2004. In addition to this permanent staff, there
are some 12,600 reserve officers. Reserve officers have two
careers; one in civilian life and one in the armed forces.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I disagree with you over force and restraint for reasons already given (restraint is still force like it or not)

Your view is an opinion not fact, albeit one I share as I accept the conflict theory of power. Advocates of the consensus view of power would not necessarily agree. Such people seem to be in the majority in democratic style societies. (ignoring the amount of force often needed to effect major social change)

I'm sorry Padraic, outside of the fact that just about everything is mere opinion (even scientific explanations are "just" opinions, albeit based on empirical data, inasmuch as they are interpretations of specific observations when you consider them closely), I don't think you can justifiably belittle what I said in that way ... I think that anything that restrains people against their will is a force. If you tied someone up against their will would that be force? I think you'd find it difficult to argue that it wasn't. What is the difference between that and restraining someone in a cage?

Kyu

---

Approximately 20,000 regular officers and civilian employees work for the Swedish Armed Forces. By 2008, this number will have fallen by about 4,000 people as a result of Defence Resolution 2004. In addition to this permanent staff, there are some 12,600 reserve officers. Reserve officers have two careers; one in civilian life and one in the armed forces.

Fair enough I'm wrong but judging on that link (the PDF) so might you be. The PDF is confusing anyway ... yes it says what you said it says but further up it says that in 2007 the Swedish Army had 47,000 personnel. That doesn't put them at much below the capability of the UK and if you add your home guard in (42,000 is a number I saw somewhere), and let's be honest here if they are mentioned in that PDF then they are a considered component of Swedish military strategy, then that figure rises considerably. The PDF also mentions over half-a-million people in voluntary defence associations.

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I'm sorry Padraic, outside of the fact that just about everything is mere opinion (even scientific explanations are "just" opinions, albeit based on empirical data, inasmuch as they are interpretations of specific observations when you consider them closely),

No need to apologise,I agree with you.

My point is that our view is one side of the conflict/consensus dichotomy of the nature of power. I think we're right. I also think the consensus view tends to be intellectually dishonest, even disingenuous at times.

I remain a skeptic about theories of all kinds at all. Conflict theory best explains to me the way the way is organised and operates. However,I realise my perception may not reflect reality. I think we agree in principle, but please feel free to have the last word.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think we agree in principle, but please feel free to have the last word.

Why would I want to do that?

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

lol