|
| quote: | | Your falling onto the same trap as DigiNut by implying that for someone to be coerced, they must be forced to change their actions. This does not have to be the case at all. An oppressive state can coerce its citizens into not changing their behaviour (for example, in an oppressive state the people will obviously be striving for a change, or more of a say in the politics of that country, so the state can coerce the population into not striving for change, by targeting groups that are fighting for change) |
George I never said or implied that coercion has, as intent, the change of people. I don't really know where you got that from. Yes, my example was one where coercion had, as intent, a particular change, but in no way shape or form does that imply that I hold that as a general rule.
| quote: | | Therefore, I still say that coercion and oppression can be the same. A population can be coerced by oppression. Forcing people to act a certain way (coercion) will have the result of oppression. |
George they are NOT the same nor does one HAVE to logically flow from the other. In other words, sure, perhaps a form of oppression COULD use coercive means, but it does not imply that EVERY instance (which is what would be required for them to be "the same") of oppression needs to use coercive means. For instance, they could simply beat the living shit out of the populace, just for kicks, without the specific desire of extracting demands (which would make it oppression but NOT coercion).
My point is simple:
IF oppression is true, then coercion does not NECESSARILY have to be true. IF it did, then you'd have a point. However, I NEVER discounted the possibility that oppression could not occur through coercive means. Only that it does not NECESSARILY have to (which was our point of contention, because that would make them NOT the same).
Anyway, if what I just clarified is what you originally meant, then we're on the same page.
| quote: | | Just because the oppressing state declares an action lawful or unlawful, it does not mean that we (on the outside) will view it that way... |
Good and valid point, but one that can be addressed when the time comes to agree (perhaps) to a set of laws, either universal (such as international law) or laws within the context of the conflict. Specifically, in the case of I/P, I like using international law, because as you mentioned, they don't have "legal" rights over the occupied territories, and so, the application of some international standard of law would be the best.
Furthermore, I didn't see the need to actually use this line of defence when presenting my argument for states being hypothetically able to commit terrorist acts on their own populations since even by playing with the state's own laws, you can find examples of such occurences (as was done in a previous post). So yes, you were right about states being able to commit terrorist acts after all, even by such a constrained definition 
Finally, and in all fairness, to say that Diginut will refuse to accept that Israel is a terrorist state in the future etc BEFORE we've even discussed this specific case is unfair. Logic is logic, and he's conceded points before, and we can easily present cases where this is true and where he will HAVE to conceed the point 
| quote: | | Ok, Israel demolishes civilian's homes in the occupied territories to coerce them into not pressing for independence or a greater say in the running of their lives...that fits into every definition of terrorism we have seen |
Case in point. Stop stealing my examples
|
