Ukraine’s capabilities wouldn’t change whether Russia’s invasion was unjust. If they were a corrupt nation run by neo-Nazis (they aren’t) and Russia wanted to draw attention to it, then they’d be justified in attacking Ukraine.
I don’t really know what “resistance ideology” is. Are otherwise-heinous actions acceptable if they come from a weaker party? Is this that power-plus-prejudice thing again?
That’s a Wikipedia article that’s not about resistance ideology. It’s sole citation for that line is a book written by a Jewish professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. You might as well ask a white man what he thinks of the indian problem in the 1800’s. Well we massacred an entire town but them doing anything about that is just plain wrong.
Maybe start somewhere like this, where people who have interviewed former IRA fighters talk about how they viewed violence as legitimate but that didn’t stop them from accepting peace once their goal of a free Ireland had been met.
So just give it to me straight, do you think it’s okay to shoot up a concert where nobody could reasonably be considered a threat to you? Consider that in isolation. It’s a simple question yes or no question. I’ll read your thing about “resistance ideology” if you can answer that.
Lmao. No. Because considering it in a vacuum is a bad faith exercise. I could similarly ask you about shooting clearly marked reporters just standing there. Or any of a hundred other things.
If you don’t consider the why then you aren’t really considering it.
So what specific circumstances would justify raping a bunch of women, killing dozens of children, and shooting up a concert full of people who were not an immediate threat to you? And how do they not also justify 9/11?
Ukraine’s capabilities wouldn’t change whether Russia’s invasion was unjust. If they were a corrupt nation run by neo-Nazis (they aren’t) and Russia wanted to draw attention to it, then they’d be justified in attacking Ukraine.
Then you have completely missed the point of resistance ideology.
I don’t really know what “resistance ideology” is. Are otherwise-heinous actions acceptable if they come from a weaker party? Is this that power-plus-prejudice thing again?
Maybe go read a bit on that and see what it does for your understanding of the Isreal-Palestinian conflict.
I found this article, which specifically states:
That sounds to me like Hamas isn’t allowed to kill civilians. Do I understand that correctly?
That’s a Wikipedia article that’s not about resistance ideology. It’s sole citation for that line is a book written by a Jewish professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. You might as well ask a white man what he thinks of the indian problem in the 1800’s. Well we massacred an entire town but them doing anything about that is just plain wrong.
Maybe start somewhere like this, where people who have interviewed former IRA fighters talk about how they viewed violence as legitimate but that didn’t stop them from accepting peace once their goal of a free Ireland had been met.
So just give it to me straight, do you think it’s okay to shoot up a concert where nobody could reasonably be considered a threat to you? Consider that in isolation. It’s a simple question yes or no question. I’ll read your thing about “resistance ideology” if you can answer that.
Lmao. No. Because considering it in a vacuum is a bad faith exercise. I could similarly ask you about shooting clearly marked reporters just standing there. Or any of a hundred other things.
If you don’t consider the why then you aren’t really considering it.
So what specific circumstances would justify raping a bunch of women, killing dozens of children, and shooting up a concert full of people who were not an immediate threat to you? And how do they not also justify 9/11?