Welcome to Thunderdome

Alhazad wrote:So bombing General Electric or Comcast buildings to protest them would be properly guerilla warfare? I think the line is not so distinct.

If General Electric or Comcast start employing private armies to subjugate the local populations with the tacit approval of the federal government, then yes, that is properly guerilla warfare.

If civilians are in the chain of command of the fighting forces, then they are no longer civilians as far as that war is concerned.

TPRJones wrote:

Alhazad wrote:So bombing General Electric or Comcast buildings to protest them would be properly guerilla warfare? I think the line is not so distinct.

If General Electric or Comcast start employing private armies to subjugate the local populations with the tacit approval of the federal government, then yes, that is properly guerilla warfare.

If civilians are in the chain of command of the fighting forces, then they are no longer civilians as far as that war is concerned.

East India Company armies were not active in America, though. They might have been governors and majors-general in India, but they were businessmen here.

No, but my point is as the holders of a government monopoly that were known for being militaristic, they weren't nearly as much bystanders as you make out. But it's moot anyway; dumping tea is not an act of terror nor an act of guerrilla warfare. It's vandalism and destruction of property. It's a political statement using illegal means, not an act of murder and/or war.

Vandalism can't be terrorism?

Not on it's own, I don't think so. I mean the definition is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" but while that includes intimidation I don't think that it can be particularly terroristic without some solid violence (or at least attempted violence) as part of the act.

Dumping tea in the harbor I would not include. Now if you slit the throats of the ship crews and dumped them in the harbor with the tea, now we are talking.

TPRJones wrote:Not on it's own, I don't think so. I mean the definition is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" but while that includes intimidation I don't think that it can be particularly terroristic without some solid violence (or at least attempted violence) as part of the act.

Dumping tea in the harbor I would not include. Now if you slit the throats of the ship crews and dumped them in the harbor with the tea, now we are talking.

Is Tim McVeigh a terrorist if the OK Federal building is cleared for a five-block radius?

If it was a planned situation and people were gently but firmly kept away from the danger while the building was being brought down then he's not a terrorist, he's an unwelcome controlled demolitionist.

But if it's more of a "run for your fucking lives" sort of situation that luckily doesn't kill anyone, then that's still terrorism because it included the threat of and attempt of violence and only failed by chance.

I would argue given the available historical documentation that the Boston Tea Party was more like the former than the latter. It's not like they blew up the ships, after all. I couldn't even find any mention of harm to crew. And certainly no mention of any attempt to kill or maim crew in the process.

It's not like they blew up the ships, after all.

I think they knew a better use for the local gunpowder stores was coming up shortly.

TPRJones wrote:If it was a planned situation and people were gently but firmly kept away from the danger while the building was being brought down then he's not a terrorist, he's an unwelcome controlled demolitionist.

But if it's more of a "run for your fucking lives" sort of situation that luckily doesn't kill anyone, then that's still terrorism because it included the threat of and attempt of violence and only failed by chance.

I would argue given the available historical documentation that the Boston Tea Party was more like the former than the latter. It's not like they blew up the ships, after all. I couldn't even find any mention of harm to crew. And certainly no mention of any attempt to kill or maim crew in the process.

Personally, I think if you go to war against a government, that government's employees are fair targets. I can't remember what the Geneva Convention thinks about that.

That the Oklahoma City building had a daycare in it............................

What about the people that pay the gov't money?

If you are referring to those the government steals money from with the threat of imprisonment (i.e. tax payers) then no. They are victims of coercion.

TPRJones wrote:Not on it's own, I don't think so. I mean the definition is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" but while that includes intimidation I don't think that it can be particularly terroristic without some solid violence (or at least attempted violence) as part of the act.

Dumping tea in the harbor I would not include. Now if you slit the throats of the ship crews and dumped them in the harbor with the tea, now we are talking.

With you on this.

TPRJones wrote:If you are referring to those the government steals money from with the threat of imprisonment (i.e. tax payers) then no. They are victims of coercion.

What if I find someone willingly paying them because they honestly support their oligarchy?

No, I don't think I'd consider them a fair target for warfare tactics, although if you can find a way to attack them through economic or lawyering I wouldn't frown about that. But if they're hugely major supporter it's approaching a bit of a grey area.

I don't think there's a sharp dividing line. There are things that are clearly no-go (targeting schools) and things that are clearly fair game (attacking training camps), but in between each person is going to have a different grey area. Take as guidance this: if the situation were reversed and the other side committed the act against the same sort of person on your side, would you consider it to be terrorism or just somewhat ugly warfare?

If I were a completely brutal opponent, I would target the younger generations. That's a sound genetic tactic and certainly not unnatural. Humans forget how nasty nature gets. Not to say I like it but I can't see anything but billions of individual opinions on the matter of "how much violence is too much?"

The Geneva Convention, the thing the hippies and UN love to quote incorrectly, says schools and hospitals are fair targets if being used as hostile bases and/or ammo dumps.

At some point the citizenry need to take care of themselves, and draw the line with whatever bad guy is running their lives. Oh, they might get killed? Well they're going to get killed anyway by a US drone strike. Especially if they go to a wedding.

Apple pulls support from the Reality TV Party's convention.

Apple will not contribute funds or other resources for the Republican National Convention due to presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump’s prejudiced remarks, Politico reported on Saturday.

Eh, just one company, albeit a huge one.

Wells Fargo, United Parcel Service, Motorola, JP Morgan Chase, Ford and Walgreens all contributed to the 2012 GOP convention in Tampa, Florida, and have announced they will not play a role in the convention in Cleveland this July, according to Bloomberg. The companies would not say what role Trump played in their decision.

Hewlett Packard Inc., once a major Republican funder, announced at the end of May that it would be sitting out the Cleveland convention.

Ah well, at least they're not driving former financial supporters to the other side.

Microsoft will provide technology and associated services to the convention in lieu of cash, even as it plans to give cash to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia later in July. The company donated money to the Republican convention, but not the Democratic one, in 2012.

Campaign's got success written all over it.

Seriously, if this election is anything less than a 200 electoral vote crushing, I'll be stunned.

TheCatt wrote:Seriously, if this election is anything less than a 200 electoral vote crushing, I'll be stunned.

Malcolm wrote:It's pub night. But reality is moving closer to my prediction of a Mondale-like smackdown. I could run an unknown third-world dictator against Dumpy Drumpf and still slide to a solid victory. I could rip off this whole plot and win.

Is there a website we can use to bet on the election so we can clean out some Trump supporters?

Fires his campaign manager.

Based on the article, this guy was a huge part of the Trump problem. The question is: Does this move come too late to fix his relationship with voters?