• Spzi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      A counter example: X initiates violence. Y steps in to end this, and partially succeeds. X wants to continue. Y oppresses X to prevent it.

      Not saying that resembles the Israel-Hamas conflict, just that the logic is a bit flawed. In most random street violence situations, the oppressed in the end was the person who initiated the violence.

      • @TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        It takes all parties to create peace, but as long as the initial assault continues there can ultimately only be one responsible party.

    • thatsage
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      You can easily find Hamas own videos and learn from them.

      They’re not even pretending, they outright say they’re running a jihadist war against Jews.

      • @TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        You can easily find videos attributed to Hamas. You can’t verify that Hamas aren’t funded by Israel. You can’t verify that Hamas are Palestinian. You also can’t blame the oppressed for any actions they take to rebel against their oppressors (If you have any integrity.)

    • @mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed.

      That may be the most historically inaccurate statement I’ve ever heard.

      Like what was the French and Indian war then? This statement could excuse the initiation of violence of any group in history, including the Nazis.

            • @mwguy@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 year ago

              What? The whole reason the nations split they way they did is because they had a long history of war with one another. That’s a pretty ignorant assertion.

                  • @TrismegistusMx@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    There can be no SPLIT without colonization.

                    We’re talking about a specific scenario, but if you want to move the goalposts, let’s do that.

                    In each and every conflict, there is one party pushing their values or priorities at the cost of others, even in tribal conflicts. The aggressor is the colonizer (oppressor) and the other person is the aggrieved party (oppressed). In each of those conflicts, the oppressor is responsible for every atrocity that is committed because in their absence, there is NO CONFLICT.

    • @Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -31 year ago

      I learned it from Hamas propaganda Videos. Those they produce and make public. Like that one showing them removing water pipes to build more rockets.