Why invasion stories are pre-ww2 preception?

There are plenty of invasion movies where a massive force of enemies in the form of aliens or communists invade a country and although the initial strike is as hurtful as it is surpsing, we overcome and usually by herioc guerilla act of few we manage to tip the scale to our favour – be it Independance Day, Red dawn (both versions), Battle Los Angeles, the Avengers, Edge of tomorrow, War of the worlds, and the list goes on…

Put aside the likelihood to recover from a successful first-strike, I would claim that all these stoties presents a pre-world-war-II preception of how would a first-strike would even look like. In all these stories, the enemy manages to surprise us with an army of countless fighters, going around and shooting people individually. The tragedy is incredibly photogenic, but not only that it seems incredibly wasteful and not plausible – it’s also what give us a fighting chance. And should the enemy do that?

First, we didn’t have sattelite images before world-war-II so one might think that it might have been possible to sneak a massive army without detection. Today, not only we have sattalites observing every corner of the earth, all of our electric communications are being monitored. And specifically regarding Nazi Germany – the world knew they had army and that it’s being mobelised – they just refused to believe Hitler’s audacity to actually use it, so there was no real surprise back then either.

Second, we didn’t have weapons of mass destruction until the very end of the world. Why bother sending your own soldiers to die when you can simply nuke your enemy?

Thirdly, assuming you’re interested in the enemy’s infrastructure – why not release a super crazy virus to wipe it out? (at least for the case of an alien invasion, who wouldn’t fear to get infected themselves).

Which brings to the question of why bothering invade to begin with? before world-war-II people found it acceptable to wipe out an entire nation, or to enslave it or to take over their land and drive them out. No one thinks like that anymore. Wars today are over resources and for that I don’t need to take over the country (such a hassle!). I just need a favourable leader, one that I pick (by rigging the election for example by currpotive media), or assisinating the leader and sending the country in chaos.

And if for some reason you’d still want to pick humans one by one, you’d probably send an army of killing drones flying above the clouds (pretty much like what US are doing in the rest of the world) where there’s no risk of some vigilanty resistence to try to take them down.

And lastly, we didn’t have electronics in world-war-II. who needs bombs when you can hack a nuclear plant? or simply crash down a country’s economy by taking down a few transatlantic fiber optics?

The options are limitless and all of them are better than sending an army of meat-grinder to nitpick your enemy. I’m afraid the guided-missles have ended the days of dog-fighting airplanes.

So what kind of wars should we expect? In reality, no one is really interested in mutual assured distruction. That’s not going to happen. Small-scale wars will more of a question of the battling-sides-supporting super-powers (as seen in Syria, being crushed at war with no end but no real tank-vs-tank situation). A war between two super-powers is more likey to be won by a manchurian candidate working in favour of his operative and not the death of millions.

The Arab-Jewish conflict 101

The story of the Arab-Israeli conflict, at least as I perceive it is as follows.

In biblical time, there were the Israelites. They believed they’re god’s chosen people and that god gave them the land of then-known as Canaan, later to known as Israel, although modern-day Israel is much smaller than the original kingdom. We’ll get to that. They weren’t very tolerant regarding other religions and massacred everyone there.
But then, at 900BC~ the Israel kingdom was divided (in a civil war due to tax increase) into two much smaller kingdoms – Israel (consisting of 10 tribes) and Judea (with only 2 tribes). The kingdom of Israel was annihilated by the Assyrians. The kingdom of of Judea was also conquered, but their elite was sent to exile, vowing to return and restore the kingdom of the house of King David. Later, these group (Judeans) became Jews. It’s worth mentioning that some Jews remained in Judea but they were under an occupation – First of the Assyrians and later by a few others. The land of Judea eventually became obsolete after a failed revolt against the Roman empire and the province Iudaea became “Syria Palaestina” at 130AD. The jewish temple was also destroyed. Much later this land was conquered the Turkish empire and by 1916 Britain claimed a mandate on it. But as the 1800s was the spring of the nation-states, the scattered jews now saw themselves as a nation and claimed they are entitled for a state as well. For the support of jewish settlement in Palestine region, during WW1, the British empire promised Jews to have the “national-home” in Palestine. This, and WW2 caused a surge of Jewish immigrants to Palestine, creating many conflicts between them, the arabs and the ruling Brits. Eventually the UN has voted that two states will be founded in the region: Jewish Israel and Arab Palestine.
Now, it’s important to point out that there was no Palestinian identity. The arabs actually wished to have a “caliphate” (a theological empire). But the European colonialist trifled that idea but place few Arab princes in power and eventually leaving separated.

So when the Israeli state was founded at 1948, all neighboring counties went to war against it and tried to eliminate the new imposed threat, but they lost and Israel gained more land then originally offered. There was still no Palestine, though – Gaza belonged to Egypt and the West Bank belonged to Jordan. This is not to say, the territory wasn’t filled with arabs (who only later identified themselves as Palestinians). The war, however created a new reality for many of them who fled from the war and now couldn’t return to their home, as Israeli refused their right of return claiming it would disrupt the Jewish nature of Israel. The world however decided that unlike any other refugees in the world that were assimilated at their asylum countries, the arabs refugees will be taken care of by a special UN agency – UNRWA (that’s still active) until their temporary situation will be resolved, leaving them in dire state of refugee camps for the past 70 years. Other Arabs, however, that never fled their homes became fully equal citizens of Israel. That is, at least on paper. As underlying racism exists and heavily felt. The Israeli-arabs are roughly 20% of Israel’s population. As they most often don’t get building permits, they simply build their homes illegally, and with a few exception of sub-cultures (such as Bedouin and Druze), Israeli-arabs normally don’t serve the army.

In 1967, Israel went to war against its neighbors as a counter-strike measurement and ended up conquering Gaza and Sinai, the West bank and Jerusalem and the Golan heights (that were luckily mostly empty). The temple mount was recovered, only to find the dome of the rock (a place sacred for the Muslims) at it’s place. Today, religious jews pray the west wall, which was the outer wall of the temple and today is its only remaining. The now occupied Gaza and the West bank, however, were filled with Arabs, many of them in refugee camps, after fleeing their home 19 years earlier.

These Arabs now formed their own identity. They didn’t see themselves as Egyptians or Jordanians any more, rather an new independent nation – the Palestinians.

In 1978, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt and gave it the Sinai peninsula back. But the Egyptians didn’t want the now Gaza Strip and it remained under Israeli occupation. Israel left the the gaza strip in 2005, destroying all settlements there and left it in the hands of the Fatah, only to be usurped by the extremist Hamas.

In 1991, Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel, mainly to get support from USA (now that USSR had vaporized). a peace treaty was to soon follow, but the Israeli prime minister was assassinated by extreme-right man and his successors failed to proceed with the process.

Although the forced transfer of populations is considered a war-crime, Israel has turned a blind eye toward right-wing (mostly religious) Israelis’ initiative to built (illegal) settlements in the occupied territories and cooperated with them by providing infrastructures to once-built settlement and providing army protection. Israel initially believed that these settlements will help when a peace accord will take place but these grew out of control and turn the tore the Palestinian territory to many small non-sequential pieces.

Today, the Palestinian run their own civilian regime but Israeli military is still present and affects their lives greatly. It is somewhat justified as it still affectively prevent Palestinian terror attacks on Israel.

Act of terrors are very common in the middle east since whenever. Either in militias or army raids, bombs in civilians centers or road-blockage and imprisonments. In 1948, the Arabs tried to annihilate the state of Israel completely, but after 1967 and the realization of their defeat, the majority of them changed their hope to live in peace alongside Israel independently. It’s a problematic aspiration as they can “behave” with their oppressors, but Israel would rather keep its vantage point, or they can retaliate, which will only cause Israel to retaliate in return.

So now we face with 4 options for the future

– Two independent states – which is unfortunately unlikely – due the illegal settlements, the hatred and the mistrust among the people.

– One liberal state, which means the end of the jewish state – unacceptable by most Jews.

– One jewish state, which means apartheid and its worldly consequences on Israel

– Leave things as they are, which is incredibly bad for the Palestinians and just as good for the Israeli, and sadly is being widely supported by anyone who think things will resolve on their own.

The middle east conflict is extremely loaded and it’s literally impossible to be objective about it. It’s worth listening to different sides, and notice how the narrative and how explaining what the other side thinks, can completely portray a different picture. Of course, it’s much easier to fight an enemy who reject your right to exists, and that’s the sides keep telling themselves.

On Syria

The news you won’t hear, to let you know you’re being played, is that US is bombing Syrian civilians,

I don’t think that many people know what’s actually going on Syria. I don’t claim to be knowledgable myself, but here’s what I’ve gathered.

The four main ground forces in Syria are the current regime – Assad’s dictatorship, the rebels (some secular, some fundamentalists), the extremist ISIS and the Kurds. But there are also Backers, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia and the US.

In the meantime, Russia has moved in Nuclear weapons and the US is leading  multi-national air strikes on Syrian soil, mainly against ISIS. Years to come, this will be called World War III. Just wait for it.

Thing is, there are no good guys in this war. the innocent Syrians need to choose between a cruel dictatorship or an oppressing fundamentalist rebels.

4 million people (fifth of the population) fled out of Syria and another 8 millions are displaced within. Out of the four million, 1.1 million reach the neighboring Lebanon – a country of 4 million people. Now imagine the economic strain on that country.

It the past few days, there has been numerous reports of massacres in several different Syrian cities (rumored to be fake, actually) that call for international intervention. and that concern me. would sending more army forces into this swap be helpful in any way? There’s are no good guys in this war that we could route for. There is no best-scenario outcome.

If you want your country to help – help the refugees and the displaced. that simple, fair and square. as for that damned blood-spilled land, I believe there should be an international agreement to sanction every import of Weapon, money and experts into the region. Drain it. Let them run out of bullets
In this regard, the UN security council should be thought over as its five countries unrebuked power is a major blocker in the peace process. Once one of these countries sides with one of the fighting factions, the war becomes unstoppable, to the dismay of the innocent victims.

I wonder, as a theoretical game, what would happen if the UN would sanction any war-mongering country, let’s say prohibiting any import/export of military equipment and weapons to and from that country. It would definitely annihilate Israel’s economy. But it would also leave the US in a very weird place as it currently pride itself to be the free world’s police offer and peace-keeper by bombing people in Somalia. And that’s the biggest problem with world’s politics. There are plenty of hypocritical self-righteous SOBs out there that you’ll need to deal with, one way or another.
Well, good luck people of Syria and the people of the rest of the world who are soon to follow.

Orwell’s lost heed

George Orwell‘s book 1984 is all about how horrible communism is

No, it’s not. I mean – yes, it does show the dark sides of communism, but it’s actually against something much worse and by far more relevant  than ever before: The loss of freedom for a sense of false security provided by a government (any government) falsely legitimized by the people.

Think about it: We got rid of communism, but did the world get any better? have the threats decreased? have our security budgets subsided  since the collapse of the Iron Curtain? No, we just realized there are other enemies who wants us all dead or would just like to eradicate our way of life or – more horribly – our freedom(TM). George Orwell over-simplified reality by positing a mere 3 communist superstates in  perpetual war with each other, which is almost the same as saying that all states are the same. It’s true, of course, but how would we Westerners have viewed the book if the Communists fought Capitalists and corporations? or a fascist dictatorship? and what about a fundamentalist theocracy? would we feel more or less sympathy towards the Communist state if its enemy were our modern-day enemies? What if there weren’t 3 superstates but rather 50 states with different powers and strategies, but not a single one offering true freedom(TM).

why do you put the (TM) when you say “peace”?

Oh, because “Freedom” is a commodity the state offers in exchange for allegiance. How many countries were conquered and how many people died in the fight for ‘freedom’? or in the fight for ‘peace’? aren’t they in fact one and the same?

These words – Freedom(TM) and Peace(TM) – mean so much that people don’t truly grasp their full meanings and just do what their country tells them to do in order to enjoy these great and wonderful things. They would even happily give away their personal freedoms or go to war in order to have them.

Do you live in fear?

Well, yes I do. Most people who unwillingly go to work every morning, live in fear of going hungry or broke or being ostracized by society. But you weren’t asking about this kind of fear. You asked about the Orwellian fear of government terrorism, such as random arrests and tortures.

Fortunately, I was lucky enough to be born in the right demographic group, a fate not necessarily shared by my fellow citizens (and what about yours?). But fear still plays a crucial part of the interaction between myself and my government as it keeps reminding us of our enemies who would like to drown us in the ocean. These threats could certainly be real, but maybe, just maybe, we could see the situation in a different light.

Governments are powerful, and it can do many things, both good and bad, by virtue of the power and legitimacy it is granted by the people. But the government must also sustain its power, and it does so by programming the people (‘heritage’) to believe they wouldn’t survive without the government (when the truth is the exact opposite).

State-terrorism is another Orwellian over-simplification. There are other means of controlling the population – such as religion,  nationalism, the fear of extermination by ‘enemies’ or even money. This is the kind of money that you can’t refuse without risking starvation or imprisonment.

Argh, so what’s your point?

Simply put, I encourage you to read “1984” again without thinking about Communism. Think about your government and what it actually means when it talks about “peace” or “freedom”. But don’t consider your own peace and freedom but rather those of the countries you are fighting with. Try seeing things from their eyes. And then tell me if “1984” is a fantasy or a rather simplified version of what is happening in the world today.

So you don’t like governments. I get it. Do you have any alternative solutions?

I don’t like brushing my teeth but it doesn’t mean I don’t brush them twice a day. We need our government. It can do great things, but it is our responsibility to make sure it does them. It’s our obligation ensure that the government doesn’t control us by limiting its freedom to tell us what to do. How many times did your government do something against your will? What if we could prevent this from ever happening again?

On Punishments

Theodorus prohibits from encouraging any kind of violence, so what about Capital Punishment? Isn’t it a kind of violence?
Yes, it is, and it’s a very challenging issue. Despite the efforts put into Theodorus so it wouldn’t reflect personal opinions so it would not be biased towards a narrative of ideas or worse – discriminating a part of the demographics, its attitude towards violence is the function of my personal ideology. I believe that any kind of violence should be discouraged, not because violence doesn’t solve anything. On the contrary, it does. But violence causes habituation, meaning you’ll need more and more of it in order to keep it effective. Using violence will make you numb to atrocities. And worse – becoming violent will turn you into to the person with the behavior we’re trying to eradicate.

So you think murderers should go unpunished? you know that the one who shows mercy to cruel, ends up being cruel to the weak…

If I was to think that we should have the lives of all those who believe that “man has the right to take another person’s life”, I would end in the death-row myself. And what is cruel? I don’t deny the existence of cruelty and there are certainly unpleasant people out there. But is a man that kills in order to feed his children would be considered cruel? how about a person fighting to free or to protect his country?

I think it’s fairly simple to see who is an evil murderer and who is an innocent victim

No, not really. And what do you mean “an evil murderer”? can a murderer be not-evil? how about leaders, such as prime-ministers, who send thousand (if not millions) of people to their death, whether its their own people or other people – are they murderers? and what about a white-collar white-person who pollute a river and causes sickness and death to a native village – is he innocent? “innocent” is a term defined by the jurisdictional power and you, the citizen, just hope that it is not corrupted enough to decide for whatever arbitrary decision they might have. And it doesn’t really needs to be corrupted, it can simply be with a different opinion than yours, and you’re down for it. Different opinions about the legal age of marriage, or alcohol consumption, or sex, or drugs or homosexuality or a anything else that is a controversial. If you live in a tolerant regime, you’d probably have less criminals for many other reasons as well, but as soon as you implement a strict justice-mechanism, you’ll find it very difficult to breathe….

But there’s a big difference between killing a terrorist and killing a small infant!

Maybe there’s a difference between victim, whether the victim is an innocent bystander, or maybe the victim is a “bad” person himself and he deserves whatever we decided to inflict upon him. This would mean that the person that should be put to trial is not the offender, rather than the victim and see whether the violent act was justified or not.

Still, there’s a big difference between the person who set out to kill another person and something that happened by accident

Maybe there’s a difference in the intentions, whether the victim was hurt on a deliberate intention, or it was actually a purely accidental. It’s very important distinction, if we could actually get it to work. You shouldn’t forget we’re dealing with a person that intentionally and deliberately harmed another person. Would you trust him to answer truthfully when asked on his intentions? maybe you can, maybe you can’t, but if you agree to this level uncertainty, you may allow yourself to punish ill-intended people that were stupid enough to be honest.

Well, Yes! This is the best strategy we can take in order to have justice

What is justice? “An eye for an eye”? I think it’s a very bad morality, as it perpetuates violence and leaves both sides blind. We can try to think of a different kind of justice. Let’s say that justice is “objectivity”. What is the best interest of society when a violent crime occurred? why is it of our best interest to punish the offender? We don’t want to “give him a lesson” because from that kind of “lessons” people don’t really learn. We want to re-educate him. We want him to understand why what he did was wrong and how he could have resolve the issue without using violence. We would like to keep him as a productive member of society and not shun him away. Heck, he is the society: him, the victim and many people pretty much like them. Putting the offender in jail should be used only when we have reasons to believe that it is dangerous to have him roaming free in among other people. Vengeance isn’t objective. Vengeance is childish and should not be a reason for mature and responsible action.

Okay, okay, please stop! Bottom-line. If I believe that capital-punishment is legitimate – is Theodorus still good for me?

Yes, it is. Because the definition of what is would be considered violent is subjective and something the community decide for itself, so if the community don’t see a certain action as violent, they should simple not report it as such.

Also, you might consider Theodorus’ discouragement as aiming against Vigilantism and not against the Community’s monopoly over violence. Meaning it would be okay for society to use violence but not for the individual members.

If this is the society you want to live in, you can have, but beside the deeply-rooted fear society had brain-washed you to believe that government violence is legitimate because your fellow countryman are inherently evil (are they? will you become violent if there were no violent punishments?), I don’t really see why would you want such a thing.