I. On Your Claim Of An Ongoing World-Wide Race War Between Whites and Blacks.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a new argument: that the Crusaders were justified (while black SA citizens are not) because of the protracted conflict between Islam and Christianity.
While I agree that this particular religious conflict was not present, there was and is a protracted conflict between the white minority and the black majority.
And thank you for finally answering my question about this. You seem to think that protracted conflicts between larger camps justifies these smaller battles in the larger ongoing war.
Obviously, the conflict between those dispossesed by racist laws and those who profited from racist laws is ongoing.
This position is problematic for several reasons;
1. it takes my usage of protracted conflict, which is obviously meant to refer to a state of declared war/animosity between two larger groups and attempts to take that definition and say it can equally apply to a civil rights movement or social justice. My context was quite clear and I even referred to the conflict between Islam and Christendom as a world war. Likewise, I differentiated it by its lack of either a treaty formally ending this war/animosity or an agreement to co-governance.
2. Your attempt to twist my definition to force a contradiction in my position is not only based on a red-herring and false-equivalency (both fallacies), but now also on equivocation.
3. Your duplicity:
Pants-of-dog wrote:And this is why the question about non-military movements to reclaim land was brought up.
And I didn't answer that question because I asked you to first define a military, which you openly refused to do because you said it was irrelevant. Apparently it wasn't irrelevant and you were being duplicitous and dishonest.
You KNEW that if you were forced to define "military" you would not be able to include a political struggle within a nation as a protracted conflict in the sense I was clearly using. Which is why you refused to define such when asked. So you simply assumed in your own mind your own terms to create an imaginary contradiction in my position which simply does not exist.
This is some of the most despicable and dishonest debating I have ever seen and this is why people refuse to engage you and have advised me not to do so.
4. The Problem with Your Definition of Conflict.
Pants-of-dog wrote:All of the countries that were formerly colonies of the British empire are also settings for protracted and ongoing conflicts between indigenous people and settlers.
If you insist to expand war/conflict to include social conflicts between white and blacks within a nation or state, not only would it call into question the definition of a nation and state to the point that we would almost have to accept ethno-nationalism by default, but your position would also imply that we are currently in a world-wide race war between blacks and whites.
Besides the fact that this position is crazy-talk, if it were conceded (which it won't because that is not how I defined a protracted conflict), not only would I agree that blacks are justified in taking white lands, but any retaliation by whites and white nations would likewise be justified as further retaliation is an on-going war.
Hence, my position would then be that we are at war with blacks and that we should respond appropriately.......we all know how that would end now don't we?
NOTE: I can see now why SJWs are so crazy, they actually believe we are in a worldwide race war. II. On The Nature of The Post-Apartheid Regime As Co-Governance.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, if it was reluctantly accepted by them, or forced on them, then it is not a peaceful coexistence where everyone agreed that everything was awesome and kumbaya.
Obviously, the conflict between those dispossesed by racist laws and those who profited from racist laws is ongoing. It has simply moved from the battlefield to the courtroom....
The forming of a mutually black-white constitution with equal protections under law and both having representation in a popular government are ample proofs that this is not a WAR. These peoples came together and formed a co-governance (per my definition). Of course there are still disagreements, what government lacks partisan disagreement? Given your definition, are Labor and Conservatives in the UK literally at war? That is preposterous.
The blacks in South Africa lost wars to the whites, fair and square, and joined with them in a popular government as co-governors which is a de facto
agreement to do just that; cooperate with each other going forward. Its even stronger in its binding significance than a peace treaty ending formal hostilities.III. On The Crusades and The Criteria of Justification.
That the Crusades are categorically different is grounded in several points.
1. The protracted conflict between Islam and Christianity was, as I always intended given the context, a hot war or series of hot battles not resolved by treaty or an agreement to co-governance. NONE of which is true about the situation is South Africa.
2. The settlers in South Africa did not settle into an area that they had won during a battle as occupied territory (Like the Muslims and Crusaders did as part of a larger world war). Many colonial settlers were surprised or confused when they found natives in many of the places they settled. Sometimes contact was not immediate and did not occur for some time after they arrived (which is only possible because of unused lands btw). This is manifestly not the case with Arabs settling in places like Jerusalem. That was a movement of population to a place that was recently conquered in a war. Me moving to Japan after hiroshima and nagasaki is infinitely differently than a pilgrim landing at plymouth rock.
But all of that is irrelevant, for even if the European settlement was unjustified trespassing, it resulted in actual
war between two extended groups, and he who wins, wins the spoils of war.
The conflict is ended when the enemy is either annihilated, integrated, or they settle by a treaty or an agreement to co-governance.
But thats my point, the Crusades were a justified response in an ongoing protracted conflict or war, as would have been a Bantu raiding party in response to whites burning a village during a war between the two groups.
That is not what is happening is South Africa, to say otherwise is to engage in sophistry and clear derangement. IV. OTHER
Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you think of an example that is ongoing and does not involve Marxism?
Not off the top of my head, but this area is not my strong suit and I have not researched all of the on-going post-colonial movements currently active in the Third World.
Like I said, if you have an example you would like me to look at with my criteria, I would gladly do so.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your previous argument was about settlement.
Not it wasn't. You brought that up.