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.
"the consent of the governed" and all the other slogans Murica spouts but doesn't believe.
That can still apply to people who are subjugated. Notice that the Navajo are 100x larger than their pre-annexation population numbers, have more wealth, and are all able to vote.
American soldiers had no business being in someone else's country.
That depends on the causus belli. I'm not going to accept Pacifism.
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.
That can still apply to people who are subjugated. Notice that the Navajo are 100x larger than their pre-annexation population numbers, have more wealth, and are all able to vote.
That depends on the causus belli. I'm not going to accept Pacifism.