Obviously not. The tactics of any anti government protest would change according to the response from the government involved, and that would change from country to country. Thus the response protesters would get from the government in Cairo would be quite different from that in Seattle.
Of course mob violence could change depending on the immediate situation (and see below). If the police respond with a hail of bullets (aka Kent State) then mobs will most likely break and run for cover. You think that would be any different in Cairo compared to Seattle?
Would the tactics change from country to country? I believe the response would depend more on how much of a threat the government saw in the given mob violence. The country's type of government (even the person in charge on site!) and the particular mob violence would influence how great a threat they perceived but a similar perceived threat level should precipitate a similar response regardless of country, though there are some variations.
The students at USC Davis were just sitting with their arms locked together and they got maced. Many others have done the same thing in this country without getting maced. The Kent State protests ended with the killing of four unarmed college students but there were hundreds of college protests of similar levels in era that did not result in student deaths. Was it Cairo, Ohio, or Seattle gone bad? Maybe Tiananmen Square? Who can tell without seeing landmarks or uniforms?
(And you do understand Cairo is being used as a general, not specific, example?)
No, it does not. Some mobs, as in the case of Muslims for example, have become very violent and people have lost their lives. That has not yet happened, directly anyway, with the [US] protesters.
What you're citing is a matter of intensity, not an overall change in behavior or general tactics.
Intentional killing is guerilla warfare or terrorism, not mob violence.
The tactics cannot be dictated by only one side. If the government responds with force then the tactics, usually typified by protesters running away as fast as possible in the opposite direction, can change very quickly.
Did you miss the word "situation" in the first sentence or do you need help with the definition?
Should I have used 'combat' in front of 'situation' to drive the point home farther or would you still have been confused?
But to use your example, if the government opened fire the people in Cairo will run for cover just as readily as the people in Seattle. Are you saying they wouldn't or are you making my point??
Mob violence is a type of warfare and the motivations, whether religious or political or something else, are irrelevant as they are with all warfare. Good strategy and tactics have little to do with the motivations for war.
Is it your understanding that public roads equal socialism?
Are roads government owned and maintained?
Are they required for or do they enhance commerce?
rof
