Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
Point one: Not all violence to redistribue political power is warfare. If a bunch of thugs in 1870s NYC prevents certain segments of the popualce from voting through intimidation and violence it is not warfare, though it meets your definition.
Same was true in Northern Ireland, and the American Southern states. The point was the degree of violence falls below the threshold of War because it does not use military means and is not countered using military force. - see Pablo Escobar, once he moved into politics!
Similarly when a segment of a populace within a state employs intimidation and violence to shape politics I do not believe it is helpful to resolving the problem to classify that as warfare either.
I submit that if they use military means, then it is useful and necessary to term it warfare. Look at Southern Thailand. Once the violence is escalated beyond the capacities of the Police, you have warfare.
Again, not to change your mind, only to be clear that my point is valid.
Well at least we are clear what we are disagreeing about!