In a thread about Israel and Palestine, TruthMarch said:



This is a clarifying statement. I'm sure we'll get into hypotheticals like Chinese-occupied America, as well as the situation in Iraq. But I think the above statement is simply too broad. It privileges the insurgents over the occupiers without considering the actions and motiviations of either side.

The Ku Klux Klan was born as a resistance movement when the Union army was occupying the defeated Confederacy. The Klan represented (or claimed to represent) the interests of white southerners who had lost their position of power in a war. They used terrorist tactics against black people excercising their new rights to vote, and to peaceably assemble.

I see a strong analogy between the white-supremacist Klan and the Sunni-supremacist Iraqi insurgency -- in their actions and motiviations.

Is it always good to fight occupation?

What are circumstances in which you would or would not support an insurgent group?

No.

I think there is a misconception which lies at the heart of TruthMarch's argument and that is the difference between the words 'fight' and 'resist'.

There are many ways to resist an occupation which don't involve fighting as proven by Ghandi. In the concrete example of Iraq, there are democratic means by which to rid the nation of the 'hated' coalition forces.
Since these methods are shunned by the Iraqi rebels, then the obvious conclusion is that they do not have popular backing for their insurgence.

When Denmark was invaded by Germany in 1940, the people of Denmark also didn't have any democratic means by which to oust the German occupation forces but still they engaged in a campaign of resistance which, mostly, did not rely on violence because they knew the allied forces were fighting on their behalf.

The people of Iraq have the same benefits both in that the coalition forces are largely fighting to give the people of Iraq the means of self determination and in the UN should the US led coalition threaten the legitimate government of Iraq.


They are many and varied since it would completely depend on the circumstances.

In order to act in the manner as we have seen in Iraq I would have to be facing an enemy far more ruthless and dangerous than the US led coalition. If I were an Iraqi, I would, like so many others are already doing in Iraq, support the US coalition in the anticipation of living as a free citizen in a democratic nation.

If, on the other hand I were being subject to genocide and ethnic cleansing as we see is happening in Darfur, then of course, I would take up arms against my oppressors.

The objective lesson here is that the US coalition is not on a par with the Janjawid militia and single incidents as we have seen in recent days and previously in Abu Graib do not characterize the mission in Iraq.

Something which cannot be said for the massacre taking place in the Sudan.

edited to fix quotes

edited a second time to add the following:

With all the fuss about the latest Abu Graib photographs, perhaps we should stop up and wonder why those images of abuse are so much more significant than these from Darfur:

Warning. Graphic images.

I really can't answer either debate question better than moif already has. I think the word occupation is used to loosely as of late. There are those who want people to think the military is taking over Iraq and making it an extended part of the United States. This would be occupation.



Sadly Moif, it's because there is nothing in the Darfur genocide to harm the image of the US or the Bush Administration. So the world media chooses to mostly ignore it.

Is it always good to fight occupation?
It always depends on the methods employed. There are many ways to fight occupation that do not involve violence. Just as there are many ways to use violent means without resorting to terrorism.

What are circumstances in which you would or would not support an insurgent group?
The instant they start targeting civilians they have crossed over to terrorism period. There can never be an excuse for that.

Also the abuse of any captured personnel. If they are believed to have committed a war crime, then they deserve a trial. But the insurgent had better be a solid moral ground. For the most part the Allies in World War II waited until after the war before judging most of the Axis personnel for war crimes. There were exception such as spys which where executed on all sides during the war.

There is nothing hypothetical about either condition. The ends never justify the means.

I disagree with both of you. The reason the Darfur massacres have garnered relatively little coverage in western media, and caused relatively little protest or contreoversy here, is about the same reasons the Rwandan genocides, WW2 Japanese atrocities in China and Korea, or Communist Chinese massacres caused little stir - no whites or Westerners are involved on either side, no white or Western camera crews were there at the time (which is why Tiananmen Square sticks in the mind - a picture of a man stood in front of a tank carries much more weight than a seoncd hand report of thousands of dead), and no direct white or Western interests are served or harmed in the process.

It's a mixture of mild racism (the West persists in thinking about Africa as if it's just a big country rather than a huge and varied continent) and simple parochialism; a bus crash in Germany would have to kill tens or even hundreds of people to be reported in Britain, unless three Britons are among the dead, in which case it leads the news here for two days (as it did very recently).

Similarly, a murder in London would get no particular attention in Arhus (forgive the lack of any accent moif - my keyboard supporteth it not) or the Southern USA unless the victim or suspected perpetrator were Danish or American.

To the topicmobile, Bat-Debaters...

Is it always good to fight occupation?

Since, like most other posters so far, I think it very much depends on the specific situation. For example, South African ANC more or less good; Kenyan Mau-Mau more or less bad, even though they were doing many of the same things for many of the same reasons, the end result in South Africa (despite high crime and enduring poverty) has been a rather better quality of freedom than in Kenya.

Some of the provinces of Ancient Rome (Britannia being one) saw a rather better quality of life for most people (the ones that weren't slaves at least) than they had seen as "free" people. They were still under military occupation, and their resources were still being exploited by foreigners, undesirables were presecuted or enslaved, dissenters were harshly punished while collaborators were rewarded with wealth and position - not much different to the things done by most occupying powers throughout history.

Yet we take a much less dim view of Imperial Rome, or - for that matter - of Imperial Britain (despite an often egregious history including mass murders and/or death by a policy of neglect on a huge scale) - than we do of, say, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

So the nature of the occupier seems to be a critical factor in deciding when fighting occupation is good and when it isn't.

Occupations that fail are invasions or occupations. Ones that succeed are conquests, at least in the minds of the conquerors.

What are circumstances in which you would or would not support an insurgent group?

I think a whole raft of factors come into play. How objectively bad or oppressive are the occupiers? How closely do their aspirations coincide with my own - do they want the sort of freedom I would understand, or the freedom to choose another type of oppression (e.g. a religious one)?

Essentially, if I can think myself into their place and I could imagine myself thinking and acting the way they do, I find it very hard to condemn them. I may not fully support them - I prefer the kind of Gandhi-style passive resistance mentioned by moif - but I would hesitate to condemn them.

So do you, in retrospect, think that Menachem Begin and Jewish terrorists from the Jewish resistance against the British- such as the King David Hotel massacre? In your mind- are they terrorists or are they freedom fighters?

I think alot of this is about which perspective it is played from.

I think that since we have a hypothetical force that is occupying us like we are in Iraq- if the tables were truly turned- even if over half of the country really hated the current regime, and would like to see the tyrant removed- the question, is how far would I go to oust the invaders?

What if my side is the minority- after a skilled destroying of our economy by a foriegn powers abliliity to restrict trade with us?

How far would one go, if I were like, on the 40% side of the resistance that doesn't have full popular support?

What if your family was the one wiped out, all except for you, by "collateral damage"?- Wife kids, perhaps even extended family living with you- all dead- though the folks that did it tell us they "didn't mean too"?

I have no livelihood, and no hope of having one.

Gee, might be a little radical minded.

King David Hotel. Well let's see it was the British Military Headquarters for the Mandate of Palestine. When does a military headquarters not qualify as a legitimate military target? Never in my books. I said when civilians are targeted. As for Irgun being terrorist, not likely since they targeted British military, and Arab irregular forces.

Like I said the ends never justify the means. Even in the Warsaw Ghetto, those that were considered Freedom Fighters never resorted to attacking civilians. That is the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist.

Well, sortof. The King David Hotel was in fact a hotel. IN this hotel was located a branch of the British Military Headquarters. The rest was a hotel. That is why the vast majority of the 91 dead from this bombing were in fact civilians.



Uh, nominally true, if entirely irrelevant. What civilians exactly would the Warsaw ghetto resistants have targeted? Outside the Ghetto were other Poles. The only Germans around were military.

The decision not to target civilians was not some grand moral decision, it is because there were no enemy civilians to target. Despite some active collaboration, the Poles were the main lifeline for the Ghetto residents.

I think it ought to be noted that an open minded look at the King David Hotel massacre has to take into account that it was a military target AND that an advance warning was telephoned but ignored by the British.

That doesn't mean I agree with the validity of the action, but I would make the distinction if we are debatting the differences bewteen terrorism and armed resistance.

To the first part I refer to the Geneva Convention on the Conduct of War.





These quotes are from the UN Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

So the presence of a military headquarters negates the civilian protection. Not to mention the fact that a warning was phoned in prior to the attack. Again a military target is not terrorism. This is not splitting hairs or anything else, it is black letter international law.

As for the Polish civilians, there were a large number supporting the Ghetto and an equal large number aiding the Germans in turning in people that escaped. But in no case did the defenders attack the civilians even those that aided the Germans. And a majority of the people in the Ghetto were Polish, but not all by any means, the Germans shipped in thousands from other countries prior to liquidating the Ghetto.

I don't want to repeat what so many others have said, but I agree that it is heavily dependant on the situation.

It's also very important to define the term occupation and to realize that there are different kinds of occupations. Taking over a country and holding it against the will of the people who live there is a very different situation than going in to create peace and supporting local governments until they can get on their feet. However, you can make the case that both are occupations.

This is a good topic for debate, but it's very open to interpretation.

What are circumstances in which you would or would not support an insurgent group?
It would depend on:
1. What was the previous regime like?
2. What are the intentions of the occupiers?
3. Is the power going to return back to the people?

Indeed, that is true. Of course it ilso really quite entirely open to interpretation. I suppose those bombers who blew themselves up at bus stops could claim to be ttacking 'legitimate transportation infrastructure targets', which were not made immune by the presence of civilians. I suppose It all comes down to how far you are willing to allow such justifications, and if you allow them equally to both sides of a conflict...






I already stated, irrelevant. Attacking civilian targets would have been useless, in fact entirely counterproductive to the efforts of the Warsaw occupants to stay alive. Also, given the nature of the Ghetto, such attacks would have been nigh-imposible. Do not try and place some sort of moral equivalency on a situation where the actions of the resisters were determined entirely by circumstance.

No sir, you are absolutely incorrect. There is almost no interpretation at all.

All non-military areas are considered civilian and protected. The exception is the presence of military units. Individual members of Armed Forces that are not 'on duty' are not considered military units. A bus stop that is not in close proximity to a military check point or unit is not ever a legitimate target. That is according the Geneva Convention and the United Nations interpretations. So there is no 'legitimate transportation infrastructure targets' if the military is not using them. Case in point the IDF does not use bus stops, they have their own transportation, which would be a legitimate target, it just happens not to be the one targeted.

Here would be my question Loreng:

Seeing how Israeli military has mandatory service and that and it places many of it's citzens in reserve status after serving their mandatory duty... how can they not be targets...

Chances are they have or will at some point in time assist in the oppression of the Palestinians(from their point of view) at some time.

My opinion is that you are "stacking the deck" in your favor.

If the "terrorists" do anything but stand in front of of an israeli tank and get slaughtered they are evil.

Logically, I deduce that the only options you are comfortable with are:

A: accept defeat by allowing your self to get slaughtered by a vastly greater force (economically and militarily)

-or-

B: roll over and allow Israel to do as they please...

I say again, it is not wrong for a woman to kick a man in the nuts when he's about to rape her. Sure it is lowdown, but honestly does the man actually expect the woman to go "toe to toe"

Same goes for insurgencies. They (the insurgents) can not resist by what the west would call conventional means... and they choose not to play by the rules the the West create to give the west undue advantages due to their technological superiority.

I.E. you can only kill civilians if you are aiming at a target you feel is combatative.

What are circumstances in which you would or would not support an insurgent group?

The circumstances would have to be I am in the insurgent group. Otherwise I do no not support them, merely, I recognize their circumstances and the fact that the insurgents believe they are fighting for their freedom or their way of life.

First off I did not write the Geneva Convention. So please do not attribute this to me.

The Geneva Convention states that reservist that are not on duty are not considered to be combatants and so no even Israelis that are not on duty are not legitimate targets. Nor do off-duty Israeli reservist usually "have or will at some point in time assist in the oppression of the Palestinians(from their point of view) at some time". No am I 'stacking the deck', I am merely pointing out what the United Nations and the Geneva Convention say.

Can you imagine if say the Israelis actually acted with the same lack of regard to the rules of war? Can you tell us what the result would be? I can there would be over a million dead Arab tomorrow. Those rules are there to protect all civilians.

There have been many national liberation movements over the years that have managed to take on an advanced nation and succeed without resorting to terrorism.

If an insurgent force looses to a national army, well SH. Since the insurgents usually have the advantage of time and place of attacks they are more likely to succeed than the forces they are fighting.

If you can not or feel you can not win except by murdering civilians then perhaps you don't deserve to. Terrorism, like genocide and rape can not ever been considered a legitimate combat action.

So, Droop, what in your mind is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist?

I completely agree that most insurgent groups can't match the group they are resisting by conventional means and have no option but to resort to more creative methods. But there has to be a line drawn between resisting an occupation and terrorism.

Saying that you can only kill civilians if you are aiming at a target you feel to be a combatant sounds good, but is also very subjective. Does a car bomb that kills a few soldiers and a dozen civilians count? How about purposefully killing fellow citizens to scare them away from helping the occupiers? I understand your point, but I don't know where the lines are drawn.

Not sure that I know the answer to that, but I don't believe that insurgents and terrorists are the same thing viewed from a different perspective.

No, but you certainly are a fan of selective application of it. While ranting above about how historic Israeli terrorists kept to the Geneva convention while current Palstinian terrorists do not, you neglected to mention the repeated UN resolutions passed against Israel for its violation of the Geneva conventions, and even more that would have passed had they not been VETOed by the US.

So it is time for you to decide Loreng... do you respect the Geneva convention or not?




Really? Name a couple...




One man's terrorist... Independent movements from The American revolution to the IRA have used what the other side considered terrorism for centuries. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Sometimes it alienates the base of support of the terorists, sometimes it forces the occupying power into even increasingly heavy-handed actions, eroding their moral authority.

I don't think we can say which has happened in Israel yet...

Is it always good to fight occupation?

That depends on which side you happen to be one. It's a very subjective question with no correct answer.
Throughout history some occupations have been brutal and horrific, some have been beneficial and benign. Since this question obviously deals at least obliquely with Iraq, then the legitimacy of the current government comes into question, and again this comes down to perception. Why is our presence in Iraq routinely called an occupation, as we remain their at the behest of the ruling regime........yet our presence in Afghanistan started in the same manner and we remain there also at the behest of the current regime. Yet the latter is seldom if ever, referred to as occupation.

What are circumstances in which you would or would not support an insurgent group?

In almost any conceivable circumstance of an invading power, I would be an insurgent. Since any nation occupying the United States would likely be malevolent and anti-democratic in nature, I would heed the calling to help my fellow citizens escape the yoke.

But.......a successful strategy for resistance relies on the support of the populace, not the indiscriminate killing of them. As we see in Iraq today, insurgents often place or fire explosives directly at civilian targets such as markets and teaching hospitals. It is for reasons such as these that I foresee that particular resistance collapsing, when popular support dwindles to non-existence combined with democratic freedoms and market economy.
The French Maquis during WWII were largely successful in their actions precisely because their actions resulted in few French deaths, excepting the reprisal killings by German troops.
As a matter of reality, a resistance made up of average schmoe's will likely fail, IMO. This thought lends itself back to some posters arguments that, when faced with a militarily superior occupying force, the only recourse is to accept a large numbers of civilian casualties. this is not true. The array of military targets that can be affected whether by violence or subversion reads like a buffet. A successful resistance must have a mix of military for tactical reasons, educated folks for strategic, and 'worker bees' clean enough to land positions working in or around the occupying force. Without even taking into account the inherent weaknesses of systems and personnel that I know of (by virtue of being in the 'occupying force'), I can come up with a smorgasbord of ways to degrade our efforts in Iraq.....all without any substantial loss of Iraqi life. Of course I'm keeping those to myself.

The point to this is, the insurgents we see in Iraq today are by and large lazy. As is the defense of their tactics. This is not to say that they haven't been creative at times, but primarily the execution of their actions has been counter-productive and will lead to failure.

Loreng59:

Vermillion asked some of the very question or made some of the very statements I would have made so I don't want to repeat him. Here is what I will answer:




Yes, can you?? Israel's game has been the same for 60-70 years now.... play victim. Can they afford the image of slaughtering palestinians to such a degree?? The "victim" would become the "monster". Even Israel's grandiose ability to cover things up would not be able to save them.

You say those rules protect all citizens... correct???

So, do the math...

Israel follows the rules... (by your contention)
Palestinian terrorists don't (by your contention)

Which side has more documented civilian casualties??? Funny, but not surprising I am having a hard time finding objective information on this. My searches seem to pull up all pro-israeli sites. But it makes no difference, because



pro-israeli source

** anyone who has different numbers feel free to post them.

My point is simple, the Geneva code, while used by Israel and discarded by the palestinians has not protected civilians. What it does protect is the status quos image. SO their supporters can trumpet how they follow the "rules of war" somehow implying that they are the "good guys". Trust me it's a complex of most human in the world to view such things as good and evil. This includes terrorist. And regardless of their crimes against humanity most people will tend to think themselves as good guys... from the soldier to the "terrorist"


Andrew78108


The only difference between a squad of of soldiers, an insurgent group, or a lone "terrorist" is tactics. Most, if not not all acts of war or aggression are meant to terrorize. O.K. what's the root word of terrorize, terrorism, and terrorist?

Terror


Which of the three (military, insurgent group, or "terrorist") don't instill intense fear??

Which of the three don't use violence to intimidate or coerce a population of people??

So why do only "terrorist" employ "terrorism", thus gaining the title terrorists, while all three meet the standards of the root word... "terror". Let me rephrase, just in case what I said is confusing.

Why do all three innately cause terror among a populace of people, but only one gets attributed a name with the root word... "terror-ist"??

The answer is simple.... because the status quo has the resources, ability, and desire, to define the "lesser" people. Basically, we've been duped once again. Of course most of us are willing, due to the fact it reinforces our positive self image of ourselves as good guys and the enemy as evil.... it's what I call the "G.I. Joe complex", by the way. We've been bamboozled by a word game. Notice how that even when they attack soldiers nowadays.... insurgents are called "terrorists". Think about it... if our soldiers are fighting them.... how can they be terrorists??? They're fighting... soldiers... a.k.a military targets... we've been horn-swaggled.

The question I would put forth, is not where do I draw the line between terrorist and insurgents, or even soldiers, but where do I draw the line in tactics.

Generally, I believe the invading force is wrong... not always, but generally speaking.

And even there I don't see black/white but shades of gray, because humanity is complex, not simple. And the ability of humans to justify atrocities is complex not simple.... especially when it is their side that committed the atrocity... just look at the debate on dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. over 100,000 civilians killed, and that is a "complex" issue to many.... I should say "complex and justifiable"

Not selective as you are ranting, just accurate. Since many (including yourself and the UN) claim that the land is 'occupied' when a simple reading of the international treaties show that at best it can be considered 'disputed' they include provisions that are not relevant to the question. Am still waiting for a single international law that disputes Israel's claim to the land. So you are the one being selective, not me.

As for the UN all of resolutions since they voted to end the mandate are in violation of their Charter and all norms of international law. So what? The UN has decided that Israel does not have the same rights as any other nation in the history of the world. So yes I respect the Geneva Convention as written without special rules for Israel, do you?

"Really? Name a couple..." Finland, Poland.

"One man's terrorist... " Is every man's terrorist. Since the definition of terrorism is targeting civilians, A WAR CRIME then any excuse is to say that some civilian lives are worth more than others. I have no problem with insurgents, freedom fighters, national liberation movements, as long as they they respect civilians are non-combatants and are not to be abused. I do understand that war is never clean and neat and civilians are harmed. I have been through one war and have a lot of military service to back it up. But when part of the tactics include targeting of civilians you are no longer worth anything at all. I do not support any war crime period.

Is it always good to fight occupation?
In order for the occupying force to be pressured to leave, the occupying force has to suffer a blood loss. The insurgents in Iraq are free to target American soldiers. They should make an effort to minimize civilian deaths when they target American troops or the puppet government.

What are circumstances in which you would or would not support an insurgent group?
The first thing I would look at is the previous regime. Given how much I hate the Federal Government and Corporate leadership in America, I would most likely sit back and watch TV if a foreign country invaded America and burned Washington DC down. The second thing I would look at is the insurgents themselves. Some of the insurgents in Iraq who are targeting hospitals and schools are just plain crazy and should not be supported. Nonetheless, the United States deserves to lose the war in Iraq. The third thing I would look at is whether or not I myself should make a personal sacrifice in Iraq. As much as I opposed the US invasion of Iraq, I am very hesitant to go over there and fight against the US forces. If the Bush administration attacks Iran though, I personally would consider going over to Iran and join their army.

Loreng- though I sympathize with your POV- I have to say this- and this is how any human being is "radicalized"- is to give them nothing to live for, and a target for thier hatred. Sometimes it has some basis in reality, sometimes it does not.

Now- as I try to look for objective population figures pre-48 or pre-balfour- it seems that the population of "trans-jordan" was made up of what, 32% Jews?

Aren't the largest growing segment of the Jewish-Isrealite population Eastern European Jews? If not now- it certainly was in the late 80s and 90s.

So, here is what faces a Palestenian post -48.

Someone else has decided that they are going to be the new homeland- regardless of the fact that it has not been a country for 2000 years.

So, the correct analogy is this:

Okay- all you Texans, we have decided to right the wrongs of the US, and give all of Texas to those of American Indian lineage, as long as you can prove you are of that lineage. All you folks living here- get out! Not your country anymore!

Kansas doesn't particularly like Texas or Texans in the first place- but will let those dirty Texans live in camps on the plain- but don't ask for Kansasian citizenship- you need to fight for your homeland back!

I am an everyday hardworking Texan, with 5 mouths to feed, and a wife at home. I go to church everyweekend, and do my best to be a good citizen.

Now, I don't like the Texan Liberation organization- but , as a Texan, I at least sympathize with most of thier political ideas. But no worry- I just keep my head down, and go to work, and try to scrape out a living.

But all that changes, because, wouldn't you know it- my three doors down nieghbor billy bob was a key figure in the TLO- and the American Indian Defense Force (AIDF) - lobbed a bomb, mistakenly, in my direction- killed everything I have spent my life dreaming and working for.

I have nothing to live for- nothing- except my anger, pain, and wish to kill every last American Indian alive- and I don't care if they are children, or anything else- after all, they didn't care so much about mine- and they are invaders anyone- every single one of them represents part of the occupying force (even though the UN gave it to them, and there is not one UN resolution supporting my viewpoint- and several that tells them to stop killling my family- the US or the UN surely doesn't try to enforce them on the American Indian- but will justify war on anybody else they feel like, and claim a UN mandate) -

So, I have nothing to give but my life, and don't care who dies at this point. In fact, I HOPE to inflict as much pain on the American Indian as they have inflicted on me- thier very precense and fact that they are breathing torques me off.

So I strap a bomb on my body and look for a school yard full of American Indian children- because I know that killing a few soldiers won't make them fear me, and the folks that support my cause- but killing thier family memgbers WILL make them fear me.

Now- as a commander of guys like the hypothetical guy I just mentioned- he knows, that no matter what, I have absolutley NO chance of winning even a "conventional"guerilla war that only targets <ahem> "military" targets- the only way I will EVER get any traction against my enemy is to hurt him where he lives- his family. Make it as impossible to live among us as it has been to live among them.

As that commander- my life is going to be short and I know it. Not too many old insurgent commanders in the world! So I only care about results- not about the Geneva convention, not about the "rules of engagment" - that only seems to benefit the enemy, but hinders our ability to throw off the yoke of occupation.

So, targeting thier families make the most sense.

So- even though I am an American softie- I can easily make the logical jump as to why they fight they way they do

Because, quite frankly, there is no other choice. Every other choice is surrender to the invaders.

I started off the topic with:



skeeterses kicked off the second page of replies by adding number 21:


Yes, the "puppet government." That would certainly be the KKK's view of the South during Reconstruction. "Those nigras are just gonna vote the way their 'Great Emancipator' and his Republican cronies tell them to." Let me be clear, I'm not putting those words in your mouth, skeeterses. But I would like to know why you wouldn't support the KKK in the US-occupied Confederate States of America.


Do you think they'll have cool black hoods like the Saddam fedayeen?

Sigh. I guess I may as well submit my own answers to the questions I posed.

Is it always good to fight occupation?

No. It depends on the nature of the previous regime, the nature of the occupation, and the intentions of the occupiers. Sometimes occupying forces need to be met with violence. Who doesn't sympathize with the French Resistance against the Nazis, and loathe the Vichy collaborators? Sometimes -- I'm thinking of the "losers" in the Civil War as well as World War II -- occupation can a positive boon.

But less oppressive occupations can still be onerous, or at least hurt the national pride. When a Gandhi comes along, and shows the way to gain independence, without violence, without firing a shot... well, I'm simply awed. It's awesome. But Gandhi's tactics require a certain kind of opponent, what Martin Luther King called an "opponent with a conscience." I expect the Chechens would have less success with Gandhian methods than the Palestinians would. I'd recommend they both try it, though.

What are circumstances in which you would or would not support an insurgent group?

I'm still pondering this one, and I appreciate the opportunity to consider the responses you've all posted so far. For now, I'll say I'm not likely to support a violent insurgent group against an "opponent with a conscience," which I think describes most of today's democratic states.

But I pointed out that its important to look at the insurgents themselves as well. Its not enough to simply be against the occupation in order to actually go out and fight. I would most likely fight against an occupation if the occupying force trampled on me personally or the insurgents were representing a cause that I feel strongly about. Chances are, if I were around during the Civil War, I would have done what Mark Twain did and go west instead.

In Iraq, George Bush was clearly wrong for invading a sovereign country without provocation. He's now trying to prop up a government that is friendly to the US. Many of the insurgents for their part want some type of Islamic government. Neither cause is worth dying for.

CruisingRam I think that there is way too much being read into my statements. First off there is more scrutiny of the Israeli-Arab conflicts than the rest of the world combined. That in itself is an entire different matter and too little attention to Rwandas, Darfurs, Chechnyas, etc.

So I will limit this to just generalities. There are rules of war that are based on the simple morality that not everybody is involved in a combat situation. I.E. that there is such a thing as civilians. I must say that I am very surprised at the number of self-proclaimed 'liberals' that are trying to find exceptions to the above statement. I also believe that prisoners on all sides must be treated humanely.

Please look at yourself with a lot of very careful analysis if you feel that there is anything wrong with supporting those views. I have been called here a 'radical' for that. Wow I never considered that to be a radical POV before. I guess if that is the definition then I will proudly proclaim myself to be a radical. Must be the first Radical Republican in the past 100 years.

Fair enough- I wanted to delve into the reason why anyone would strap a bomb to thier body and take out as many others as they can. Or how one could celebrate the death of a child for "giving thier life for thier country".

America hasn't really defended itself against anything since WW2. We were not defending AMerica by invading Vietnam, Iraq, one or two. Hiring death squads in El Salvador and Niceruaga - which murdered innnocent civilians, women and children, with the express backing of Reagan and Ollie North, is very similar to the actions being employed by the PLO or Hamas or whatever.

Our military, along with Isreal's, is undefeatable, even in a straight (um, does this make sense?) "conventional guerilla war"- where you do raids, hit and run, on military targets, is a thing of the past.

If, now, this is coming from the Hamas POV, they are walking a razor wire, a point from being the liberators of the occupiers- or from a killer of thier own poeple.

But in the end, it is the only way they can possibly have a chance to win this.

They basically have a couple options- one is to capitulate to the "occupiers" and try to out breed the jews and take over goverment that way- OR, to go the way they are now, making it too uncomfortable for Jews to live there, living with overwhelming security 24/7 , just to remain marginally safe, and killing thier children to the point it is not a good place to live anymore.

Now- from my own point of view- if, let's say these Chinese "liberators" managed to take over Alaska, and killed everyone in my family but me in the process (even though they expressed condolences and "didn't mean too" and they only way I could get back at them is to strap a bomb to my body and see how many of thier "settlers" I could take out with me, I would probably do it.

I wouldn't care if they got rid of GW for me, I didn't ask them to come and liberate me from the oppresive Republican theocracy, even though I hated it- my family WAS alive until the Chinese invaded and killed them.

To NOT look at it from that POV and be a military man is dangerous too.

No. It's good to fight an occupation if the occupier is my enemy, but really really bad if my allies or I myself happened to be the occupier.

There is a moral absolute, but in practice, almost everyone makes their judgements based on their own perspective.



As mentioned before, if they are fighting someone I dislike, then two thumbs up for them, "go freedom fighters"; on the other hand, if they are fighting someone I like, I'd say "bad, bad terrorists."