Raze

So why was he calling for genocide on video? Probably he talks honestly to Israeli audiences and in interviews he knows will be translated to English he speaks differently. This is what he did at Oxford That sounds like openly insulting the audience because he was upset they were clearly losing the debate. I don’t really see why someone who seems to have mental illness (he’s posted threats to multiple people) and is regularly caught making up lies, while also on video claiming 1 million children must be eradicated should be taken seriously.

They stopped fighting because they stopped being attacked, currently natives have equal citizenship in the US.

Why can’t you relay the advice from high development level experts

That guy is a mentally ill propagandist who has threatened multiple people and had to be kicked out of the Oxford Union, and has openly called for genocide. He is not a reliable source.

What you’re saying is ahistorical nonsense. There is zero evidence native Americans would have genocided the colonists, when they fist arrived multiple tribes tried to ally with them, they also had no capability to do that. There’s also zero reason the colonists had to commit genocide, they did it for land and wealth. The British actually originally tried to halt further expansion stating they considered it native land and colonists disagreed. Native Americans aren’t a death cult for resisting the people killing them, a death cult would be accepting their deaths. They are victims because the war was aggression launched against them, that would also be the case if they won. By your logic if a burglar takes your home and kills you when you try to stop him we should be waxing poetic about how you were a death cult and would have done the same in his shoes and that’s just history.

That’s the point, if the government because authoritarian and ban enough Americans with guns could have the option of outlasting them with guerrilla tactics

It matters because ceding the linguistic ground is the same as ceding land in a war, it is another layer of the battle, a more sophisticated and more important layer. If your enemy defines the narrative, you already lost .

That’s the point. They just use it to label whatever they want to apply power through linguistic manipulation. There are actual precise balanced definitions of crimes under international law but t governments delegitimize it for their own ends because they don’t want to be held to fair standards. So accepting their terrorism labels is just enabling them.

This is the definition of terrorism Where in there is there anything that would apply to suicide bombers that wouldn’t apply to countless US and Israeli operations. Right now the US is blockading Cuba and blockading and bombing Iran, both countries that did not attack it before they did that (making it unlawful aggression), for the stated reason of tormenting the people to achieve political goals. The only reason it’s not considering terrorism is because the US is doing it. If Al Qaeda did this exactly to the US they would be called terrorism. Its literally the same concept of misuse of definitions and lack of precision / double standards far leftists do for social causes, but being done by governments. If the judicial system charged people like this it would be considered an obviously corrupt kangaroo court. Imagine if the only people who get charged with murder were people they didn’t like and if someone they liked committed murder it’s not considered as bad and called something else.

That’s exactly the problem. That’s why terrorism isn’t considered an actual definition in international law. It ends up just meaning what those in power say it is. A suicide bomber blowing up a cafe for the stated aim of causing terror for political aim is called terrorism and used to justify force. The US or Israel drone striking an apartment or blockading a city for the stated aim of “pressure” is called justified. In both cases it’s aggression to cause terror mostly on civilians to force goals. But because one side has more power and a suit and tie we are expected to accept it and accept whatever they say in response to the other side. The US and Israel literally call direct attacks on their occupying soldiers terrorism, meanwhile they can try to starve people and engage in illegal occupation which international law recognizes is as bad or worse as anything they’d define as terror because it has the same justifications and causes the same harm.

That’s arbitrary then. If we use the definition of terrorism equally the US and Israel objectively do more.

Planes are hijacked to get hostages. Israel keeps plenty of civilians prisoner as bargaining chips. Effectively it’s the same, except a state is responsible for one.

If they were around today they would be called terrorists and the media would be discussing how it justifies killing more of them and taking more of their land

They would regularly raid settlements and slash children actually.

That’s not the case if it is a large enough majority, see how the US public turned against apartheid South Africa and eventually pressured big businesses and government to do the same. Also the National Security establishment wants to pivot to Asia so it doesn’t benefit from this. Even israel lobbyists in the US like Mark Dubowitz who are embedded in the government are also warning about it and calling for plans to stop it https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/israel-must-prepare-for-the-possibility-of-financial-warfare/