From: uklm@permabulator.33mail.com 
  
 On 10:56  15 Aug 2025, Roger Hayter said: 
 > On 15 Aug 2025 at 10:30:48 BST, "Pamela" 
 >  wrote: 
 >> On 10:28  12 Aug 2025, JNugent said: 
 >>> On 11/08/2025 09:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>>> On 11 Aug 2025 at 20:20:17 BST, "JNugent" wrote: 
 >>>>> On 11/08/2025 01:03 PM, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>>>>> On 11 Aug 2025 at 12:23:45 BST, "The Todal" wrote: 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> [TRIMMED] 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Point of order:  they have invaded Syria, which is more relevant 
 >>>>>> to them. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> When was that? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Are you sure you are not referring to the removal of threat to 
 >>>>> Israel from within Syria? 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Yes I am sure. They had already annexed the Golan Heights, and now 
 >>>> they have occupied a large swathe of Syria surrounding this. As 
 >>>> well as bombing Damascus and various other places. The fact you 
 >>>> didn't know this does not make it untrue. 
 >>> 
 >>> Attacking a neigbouring country (eg, by launching rockets and high 
 >>> explosives from across the border) always carries the risk that the 
 >>> territory used for the attacks will be annexed. We used to call it 
 >>> "conquest", though it is a different matter from invading a state 
 >>> with a view to taking it over. 
 >>> 
 >>> It happened to parts of Germany after WW2 and those territories are 
 >>> still parts of Poland and Russia. 
 >>> 
 >>> What's the difference? 
 >> 
 >> This is surely the nature of conquest and it has been like this 
 >> throughout history. The Germans didn't complain at the supposed 
 >> inequity of that new border imposed upon them after WW2. Germany had 
 >> triggered a war by a border incursion into Poland and, several years 
 >> later, lost. 
 >> 
 >> Similarly with Gaza. Repulsed terrorists don't get to go back to 
 >> life before their incursion and then later try again. 
 > 
 > But there is a fundamental difference between annexing territory and 
 > keeping it as an occupied territory. The possibilities are; 
 > incorporate an annexed territory and making its inhabitants citizens, 
 > the European model; expel or slaughter the inhabitants of the annexed 
 > territory, the historical genocidal model of various barbarian 
 > Hordes; or annexe the territory and keep the inhabitants as stateless 
 > slave labour, the Apartheid or Nazi model. They are not the same 
 > thing, and only one model is consistent with Western civilisation. 
  
 There is never a perfect comparison with all historical situations but 
 an egregious modern misconception arises from applying "presentism". 
 Especially when the comparative yardstick is based on the starry-eyed 
 idealism of conventions drawn up in the aftermath of WW2, coupled with 
 the hyper-emotional sensibilities of post-modern thinking. Holding such 
 conclusions up as a measure of "western civilisation" can be very 
 misleading. 
  
 War is brutal, violent and horrific and should be avoided at all costs. 
 But if war is provoked by an enemy then, as Clausewitz explained, it 
 can not be half-hearted. You can't put out 80 percent of a fire and 
 then expect it not to restart. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)