But in the Philippines case, you framed their resistance as 'aggression' once the conquest was accomplished. So by that logic, you punching me in the face to get your wallet back is your aggression.
Similarly, what I'm saying is that when you can't appeal to The Law (and no one in international politics can), then I believe that there are times when you have to accept that you lost something, and a reprisal against someone who caused that loss is wholly inappropriate. Especially if that reprisal is disproportionate, and there is no longer an imminent and lethal threat to you.
Extraordinary. You're actually arguing that people who are occupied should 'accept' that and that 'reprisals' (i.e, trying to drive occupiers out) are not legitimate.
I guess this is 'informed' by the fact that your country normally is the occupying power. I'm pretty sure that you were not picketing screenings of Red Dawn. That was US doing it.
But in the Philippines case, you framed their resistance as 'aggression' once the conquest was accomplished. So by that logic, you punching me in the face to get your wallet back is your aggression.
Yes, after you've walked away with my wallet. It would be an act of aggression to blindside punch you in the back of the head, knock-out game style, if you were just standing around waiting for a bus. And yes, the law would punish me for that.
You're actually arguing that people who are occupied should 'accept' that and that 'reprisals' (i.e, trying to drive occupiers out) are not legitimate.
I'm not saying whether or not it's legitimate. I'm saying it's not defensive. You have to recognize it as an attack; an act of aggression. You can't claim that anything at any time you do after an origin point of your conflict is defensive because the initial aggression didn't come from you. At some point, you are engaging in an act of aggression, whether legitimate or otherwise.
At a certain point, I have to say, it will most certainly not be legitimate. Particularly decades or centuries into the past. This is why I previously emphasized that even if someone took my house, I would never demand my kids attack the people who happen to be living on it when they grow up.
I wouldn't support that for the same reason I wouldn't say the English or French have a right to start killing Italians for the brutality of Caesar's campaigns. Whatever happened, at some point, you have to accept that things are just the way they are now. If you couldn't stop it initially, there is a point where you literally can't undo it. If you want to reverse it, understand you are the aggressor and you should take heed to act in as moral as possible as an aggressor and conqueror.
I guess this is 'informed' by the fact that your country normally is the occupying power.
Don't make me get a map & a red marker to point out where yours has occupied.
Besides, Red Dawn takes place during an active invasion, and an ongoing war. It's not helpful to your point. That's an obvious case of defensive violence because it is literally ongoing. The Russian soldier is in your house. It's not the same as having your grandson shoot an Estonian who built a barbershop where your house once stood 70 years later.
Yes, after you've walked away with my wallet. It would be an act of aggression to blindside punch you in the back of the head, knock-out game style, if you were just standing around waiting for a bus. And yes, the law would punish me for that.
No, you're just taking your wallet back, just like the Philippines would be taking their land back. It's incredible that the place where they made arguments of convenience for the American Revolution, about the consent of the governed, is now making arguments for "actually, strike all that, we get to steal your land and occupy you in perpetuity".
At a certain point, I have to say, it will most certainly not be legitimate. Particularly decades or centuries into the past.
Is this about Israel or the Philippines? If centuries, let's not forget that they started to occupy Palestinians because they were defeated and expelled by the Romans 18 centuries before, which you say you don't support.
I wouldn't support that for the same reason I wouldn't say the English or French have a right to start killing Italians for the brutality of Caesar's campaigns.
The English and French aren't being occupied right now. If Italians had been occupying France since the time of Caesar's conquests, then of course it's legitimate to resist that. It's just a very weird argument.
Don't make me get a map & a red marker to point out where yours has occupied.
Sir, Uruguay is completely innocent of occupation.
Red Dawn takes place during an active invasion, and an ongoing war.
No idea, never watched it. I've just heard of it.
The Russian soldier is in your house. It's not the same as having your grandson shoot an Estonian who built a barbershop where your house once stood 70 years later.
So this is about Israel and not the Philippines? If there's an American soldier on their land, are they not justified in resisting?
The Philippine resistance is more like us becoming good friends after you steal my wallet, then the two of us getting jumped by another guy, and I offer to fight him to the death to help you escape, and eventually you come back with a gun and shoot him. Then you say "You know what? You can have your wallet back. You're pretty cool."
And again, I'm not even addressing the moral argument of the initial attack. I'm saying that at a certain period of time, you have to admit that you become the aggressor if you are going to "take back what's yours".
The nationality doesn't matter if the time-period is absurdly long.
So this is about Israel and not the Philippines? If there's an American soldier on their land, are they not justified in resisting?
If an American soldier kicked in their door to take their shit, they're absolutely justified in resisting. However, most the the time the Americans can be made to go away with the following interaction:
"Where Ali Baba?"
"No Ali Baba! No Ali Baba! Ali Baba bad. We hate Ali Baba. No Ali Baba."
And again, I'm not even addressing the moral argument of the initial attack. I'm saying that at a certain period of time, you have to admit that you become the aggressor if you are going to "take back what's yours".
If you occupy and despoil another country for long enough, it's Murrican now and the natives are aggressors for wanting... "the consent of the governed" and all the other slogans Murica spouts but doesn't believe.
If an American soldier kicked in their door to take their shit, they're absolutely justified in resisting. However, most the the time the Americans can be made to go away with the following interaction:
I can't say I mind the killing of Islamists and putting them in pig hides, but at the same time, as difficult as this may be for you to grasp... American soldiers had no business being in someone else's country. Even if it was 23 years and 2 months that they were there.
But in the Philippines case, you framed their resistance as 'aggression' once the conquest was accomplished. So by that logic, you punching me in the face to get your wallet back is your aggression.
Extraordinary. You're actually arguing that people who are occupied should 'accept' that and that 'reprisals' (i.e, trying to drive occupiers out) are not legitimate.
I guess this is 'informed' by the fact that your country normally is the occupying power. I'm pretty sure that you were not picketing screenings of Red Dawn. That was US doing it.
Yes, after you've walked away with my wallet. It would be an act of aggression to blindside punch you in the back of the head, knock-out game style, if you were just standing around waiting for a bus. And yes, the law would punish me for that.
I'm not saying whether or not it's legitimate. I'm saying it's not defensive. You have to recognize it as an attack; an act of aggression. You can't claim that anything at any time you do after an origin point of your conflict is defensive because the initial aggression didn't come from you. At some point, you are engaging in an act of aggression, whether legitimate or otherwise.
At a certain point, I have to say, it will most certainly not be legitimate. Particularly decades or centuries into the past. This is why I previously emphasized that even if someone took my house, I would never demand my kids attack the people who happen to be living on it when they grow up.
I wouldn't support that for the same reason I wouldn't say the English or French have a right to start killing Italians for the brutality of Caesar's campaigns. Whatever happened, at some point, you have to accept that things are just the way they are now. If you couldn't stop it initially, there is a point where you literally can't undo it. If you want to reverse it, understand you are the aggressor and you should take heed to act in as moral as possible as an aggressor and conqueror.
Don't make me get a map & a red marker to point out where yours has occupied.
Besides, Red Dawn takes place during an active invasion, and an ongoing war. It's not helpful to your point. That's an obvious case of defensive violence because it is literally ongoing. The Russian soldier is in your house. It's not the same as having your grandson shoot an Estonian who built a barbershop where your house once stood 70 years later.
No, you're just taking your wallet back, just like the Philippines would be taking their land back. It's incredible that the place where they made arguments of convenience for the American Revolution, about the consent of the governed, is now making arguments for "actually, strike all that, we get to steal your land and occupy you in perpetuity".
Is this about Israel or the Philippines? If centuries, let's not forget that they started to occupy Palestinians because they were defeated and expelled by the Romans 18 centuries before, which you say you don't support.
The English and French aren't being occupied right now. If Italians had been occupying France since the time of Caesar's conquests, then of course it's legitimate to resist that. It's just a very weird argument.
Sir, Uruguay is completely innocent of occupation.
No idea, never watched it. I've just heard of it.
So this is about Israel and not the Philippines? If there's an American soldier on their land, are they not justified in resisting?
The Philippine resistance is more like us becoming good friends after you steal my wallet, then the two of us getting jumped by another guy, and I offer to fight him to the death to help you escape, and eventually you come back with a gun and shoot him. Then you say "You know what? You can have your wallet back. You're pretty cool."
And again, I'm not even addressing the moral argument of the initial attack. I'm saying that at a certain period of time, you have to admit that you become the aggressor if you are going to "take back what's yours".
The nationality doesn't matter if the time-period is absurdly long.
If an American soldier kicked in their door to take their shit, they're absolutely justified in resisting. However, most the the time the Americans can be made to go away with the following interaction:
"Where Ali Baba?"
"No Ali Baba! No Ali Baba! Ali Baba bad. We hate Ali Baba. No Ali Baba."
"Okay. Shoot Ali Baba, if you see him."
"Yes. Okay. Thank you. No Ali Baba. Thank you."
If you occupy and despoil another country for long enough, it's Murrican now and the natives are aggressors for wanting... "the consent of the governed" and all the other slogans Murica spouts but doesn't believe.
I can't say I mind the killing of Islamists and putting them in pig hides, but at the same time, as difficult as this may be for you to grasp... American soldiers had no business being in someone else's country. Even if it was 23 years and 2 months that they were there.