If Uzbekistan invades Australia... (2 Viewers)

[chewy123]

If Uzbekistan invaded parts of Australia, and when they're asked to leave, they replied "you guys invaded the Aborigines, so suck it up". What would your response be?



One of the most common responses I hear re Israel's occupation of and settlement on Palestinian land is that 'the West did it to its indigenous', and I am at a lost word. Are we as a nation deprived of all moral standing when a nation invades another?

 

[eye ov azazel]

After invading, the new government must either wipe out the previous owners, or establish union/integration between the natives and the current populace.

 

[funkshen]

Yeah, except Uzbeks are Muslims.

 

[Lolsmith]

If Uzbekistan invaded parts of Australia, and when they're asked to leave, they replied "you guys invaded the Aborigines, so suck it up". What would your response be?



One of the most common responses I hear re Israel's occupation of and settlement on Palestinian land is that 'the West did it to its indigenous', and I am at a lost word. Are we as a nation deprived of all moral standing when a nation invades another?

When confronted with such a thing you just get the US to nuke them since they're a shitty third world Muslim country and we're a glorious (socialist) White nation

 

[iRuler]

That and it'll be good if they take out Julia Gillard while they're at it.

Dont think they would have the balls to do it tho

 

[LonelyWolf]

If Uzbekistan invaded parts of Australia, and when they're asked to leave, they replied "you guys invaded the Aborigines, so suck it up". What would your response be?



One of the most common responses I hear re Israel's occupation of and settlement on Palestinian land is that 'the West did it to its indigenous', and I am at a lost word. Are we as a nation deprived of all moral standing when a nation invades another?

I totally understand the point of the Aboriginal treatment, but they weren't an established society, they didn't have a single leader. Its kind of like how the Maori people were more so established, that's really why they exist in large numbers today. Also, when the English came to Australia it was during a time where commonly accepted views were very very different from what they are today, in terms of race and evolution. I mean Australians today laugh at people from other countries who don't know how to use a mobile phone or don't know what a tv is. Imagine what is was like for English to see a people who didn't even have 'the wheel' or clothing - something which has existed in Northern European countries for tens if not, hundreds of thousands of years. Furthermore, the English aren't going to travel all that way with convicts to say 'Ah fuck it, i guess we're going to have to take that 10 month trip back'.

People really need to look at the context of when the English came to Australia before making a judgement.

 

[stampede]

I totally understand the point of the Aboriginal treatment, but they weren't an established society, they didn't have a single leader. Its kind of like how the Maori people were more so established, that's really why they exist in large numbers today. Also, when the English came to Australia it was during a time where commonly accepted views were very very different from what they are today, in terms of race and evolution. I mean Australians today laugh at people from other countries who don't know how to use a mobile phone or don't know what a tv is. Imagine what is was like for English to see a people who didn't even have 'the wheel' or clothing - something which has existed in Northern European countries for tens if not, hundreds of thousands of years. Furthermore, the English aren't going to travel all that way with convicts to say 'Ah fuck it, i guess we're going to have to take that 10 month trip back'.

People really need to look at the context of when the English came to Australia before making a judgement.

lolthisguy

 

[LonelyWolf]

lolthisguy

you have any theories?

 

[abbeyroad]

are you fucking dumb? uzbekistan is a landlocked country, which means they don't have a fucking navy you moron. their airforce consists of outdated soviet hardware. how the fuck are they suppose to invade australia if they don't even have the logistics for it?

and you don't just ask your invaders to leave, you make them leave.

your hypothetical question is one of the dumbest shit I've heard in a long time.

 

[abbeyroad]

I totally understand the point of the Aboriginal treatment, but they weren't an established society, they didn't have a single leader. Its kind of like how the Maori people were more so established, that's really why they exist in large numbers today. Also, when the English came to Australia it was during a time where commonly accepted views were very very different from what they are today, in terms of race and evolution. I mean Australians today laugh at people from other countries who don't know how to use a mobile phone or don't know what a tv is. Imagine what is was like for English to see a people who didn't even have 'the wheel' or clothing - something which has existed in Northern European countries for tens if not, hundreds of thousands of years. Furthermore, the English aren't going to travel all that way with convicts to say 'Ah fuck it, i guess we're going to have to take that 10 month trip back'.

People really need to look at the context of when the English came to Australia before making a judgement.

hahahahaahahha fuck "lolz they weren't an established society so it waz totally ok for uz to kill dem and take their homesteaded land lulz!11!!! abos r nut humanz so iz k11!!!!"

lol at the fucking retards in this forum

 

[LonelyWolf]

hahahahaahahha fuck "lolz they weren't an established society so it waz totally ok for uz to kill dem and take their homesteaded land lulz!11!!! abos r nut humanz so iz k11!!!!"

lol at the fucking retards in this forum

People really need to look at the context of when the English came to Australia before making a judgement.

yeah its that funny isn't it? the Aborigines didn't have kingdoms like those of England and other European countries. When they first came face to face with them, they could see no cities or buildings like there own, just bush and the amount of people living in that area were extremely small. Also, im sure the Aborigines did provoke the settlers.

wanker

 

[chewy123]

are you fucking dumb? uzbekistan is a landlocked country, which means they don't have a fucking navy you moron. their airforce consists of outdated soviet hardware. how the fuck are they suppose to invade australia if they don't even have the logistics for it?

and you don't just ask your invaders to leave, you make them leave.

your hypothetical question is one of the dumbest shit I've heard in a long time.

Uzbekistan is just a dummy country I use to pose this question, I could easily use any other countries. The crux of my question is whether Australia have a moral standing when we are confronted with an invasion, given that our country is founded on the dispossession of another nation (i.e. the Aborigines).

 

[abbeyroad]

People really need to look at the context of when the English came to Australia before making a judgement.

yeah its that funny isn't it? the Aborigines didn't have kingdoms like those of England and other European countries. When they first came face to face with them, they could see no cities or buildings like there own, just bush and the amount of people living in that area were extremely small. Also, im sure the Aborigines did provoke the settlers.

wanker

hahahahahaahahahahahaha are you fucking kidding me? lulz context111!! letz look at itz!!!11!! iz ok for da robber to rub hiz victim cuz he'z nut as strong as he is!!11! context!11! on da other hand itz nut ok 4 him 2 rob sum1 whoz just az strong bcuz context!11!!!

to say that it's ok to murder a bunch of people and take their homesteaded land in one instance and not another because the context is different is fucking circular reasoning. yeah the context is different but how does that make it ok you still haven't proven it you fucking idiot

yes you're sure dem dirty abos did provoke da auzzie true blue settlers becuz u were there and for the past few hundred years you've been living near da billabong telling evrybod u come across how u were there!!11!!!

 

[kaz1]

Uzbekistan is just a dummy country

just like borat would say (sort of)

 

[chewy123]

just like borat would say (sort of)

Ms Coulter, don't quote it out of context, here's the whole thing: Uzbekistan is just a dummy country I use to pose this question .

 

[LonelyWolf]

hahahahahaahahahahahaha are you fucking kidding me? lulz context111!! letz look at itz!!!11!! iz ok for da robber to rub hiz victim cuz he'z nut as strong as he is!!11! context!11! on da other hand itz nut ok 4 him 2 rob sum1 whoz just az strong bcuz context!11!!!

to say that it's ok to murder a bunch of people and take their homesteaded land in one instance and not another because the context is different is fucking circular reasoning. yeah the context is different but how does that make it ok you still haven't proven it you fucking idiot

yes you're sure dem dirty abos did provoke da auzzie true blue settlers becuz u were there and for the past few hundred years you've been living near da billabong telling evrybod u come across how u were there!!11!!!

hey, they needed somewhere to place the convicts n other cunts. obviously today doing such a thing is highly condemned, but given the time period and circumstances surrounding the event - i don't see anything wrong with what they did. where's your theory on Australia's moral standing when a nation invades another?

calm down brah

 

[abbeyroad]

Uzbekistan is just a dummy country I use to pose this question, I could easily use any other countries. The crux of my question is whether Australia have a moral standing when we are confronted with an invasion, given that our country is founded on the dispossession of another nation (i.e. the Aborigines).

unless their justification for the invasion was" lulz we're here 2 liberate da abos from their white dogz oppresors111!" any atempts to justify their invasion by questioning australia's past would be a form of ignoratio elenchi.

we've been whacking each other in the head ever since we came out of the caves. all nations on earth are founded on violence and the dispossession of certain people, if you wanna be pedantic then nobody have any moral standing to do anything.

 

[abbeyroad]

hey, they needed somewhere to place the convicts n other cunts. obviously today doing such a thing is highly condemned, but given the time period and circumstances surrounding the event - i don't see anything wrong with what they did. where's your theory on Australia's moral standing when a nation invades another?

calm down brah

hahahahahahahha still not proving anything don't worry it's obviously beyond your intellectual capacity

 

[chewy123]

unless their justification for the invasion was" lulz we're here 2 liberate da abos from their white dogz oppresors111!" any atempts to justify their invasion by questioning australia's past would be a form of ignoratio elenchi.

But no one said they are necessarily trying to 'justify' themselves, pointing at Australia's past may just be a way to 'nullify' our displeasure. Namely, 'we're both evil invaders, that's how the world works'. That wouldn't be an ignoratio elenchi, would it?

we've been whacking each other in the head ever since we came out of the caves. all nations on earth are founded on violence and the dispossession of certain people, if you wanna be pedantic then nobody have any moral standing to do anything.

Is there a way to not be pandantic and still condemn invasions? What would be the basis of such theory?

 

[LonelyWolf]

hahahahahahahha still not proving anything don't worry it's obviously beyond your intellectual capacity

i've already proved my point cockhead
you still haven't told me your theory on Australia's moral standing when a nation invades another, particularly to that of the reasoning when the white settlers came.