Basic concepts about militarism, that appear to not be understood

[Ignoramus]

I think many people don't understand these ideas:

A country is:

a) A geographical region
b) A government
c) A population

A gangland is:

a) A geographical region
b) A gang
c) A population

Both gangs and governments are representative of their population to varying degrees. Gangs and governments rule by threat of violence.

A subset of the population that has a representative government is still called a gang by the government of that region. A government that is a dictatorship, is still called a government by the world.

The distinction between a gang and a government is that the most influential gang of a given region is considered to be a government.

All people everywhere are equal. What is ethical is not dependent on the rules of any gang or government. The influence a person has over the rules of the gangs or governments it is subject to can promote ethical actions, i.e. voting can be practical.

Gangs and governments are ruled by laws. Populations are not ruled by the gangs' or governments' laws, they are influenced by them, as much as they are coerced by the gangs'/governments' rule by violence.

A country is not a person, nor is a gangland a person.

A dispute between 2 countries, is a dispute between 2 governments. A dispute between 2 gangs, is not a dispute between the populations of the 2 ganglands. These disputes are dependant on the laws of both gangs/governments.

A government's policy is not equal to the actions of a population. A government is subject to laws, and individuals of a government's population can be made subject to those laws, but not all people in a population are subject to the laws of their associated government.

So, it's a nonsensical policy to say bombing of a population will continue until a subset of that population stops their bombing. A policy can be made to ban bombing by that government. A policy is nonsense if it seeks to ban "terrorists" from bombing, if "terrorists" are people who do not agree to be subject to those laws. However those terrorists can be arrested.

I think a good policy is: ban government sanctioned bombing; arrest those who engage in bombing.

So, all these are morally equivalent:

Foreign government A bombs it's own population
Foreign gang A bombs it's own population
Foreign government A bombs the population of foreign country B
Foreign gang A bombs a population other than it's own
The government you are subject to, bombs it's own people
The gang you are subject to, bombs it's own people
The government you are subject to, bombs the population of foreign country B
The gang you are subject to, bombs a population other than it's own

In all these cases, "we" are part of all the cited populations, since we are part of the population of the earth. It is unethical for us to bomb ourselves.

If a member of the crips kills someone in the bloods' territory, it is not ethical to bomb the population that is subject to the crips' rule.

If a government A orders the bombing of a population of another country, it is not ethical to bomb the population ruled by that government A, in response.

It is ethical to reduce violence among us. Defensive violence can reduce violence over all. How effective it is, is the measure of how ethical it is, regardless of what gang/government's policies are related.

In other words, all of us in the world are responsible for all violence in the world. It is irrelevant who is to blame, except as far as it locates where we are promoting violence against ourselves.

9/11 demonstrated that it doesn't matter what the justification is for an act of violence. There is no justification that could justify the attack on 9/11. Say, the US government was planning to commit genocide somewhere, for the sake of argument. That would not justify the attack on 9/11. Similarly, there is no reason that can justify the US bombing a population somewhere.