Spearthrower,

I don't know why you're still saying that I haven't defined the word invasion. I have. I gave you the dictionary definition. Let's apply it to this situation, as if I haven't done so already.

You can look it up here :

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invasion?s=t
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/colloc ... h/invasion

Connotations aside, and sticking only to the facts...

* There is a large number of people from outside Greece, trying to get into Greece.
* The government of Greece has not invited them into their country, nor given them permission to do so, nor given even the vaguest indication or hint that they would be allowed in.
* The government of Greece is employing military methods to keep them out.
* Locals also do not want them in their country and have taken action to try and keep them out.
* There have been reports of those trying to enter Greece using violence at the border.

Earlier you were talking about how if you're invited it means it's not an invasion. You can't say that in this case. Now you're saying that Greece is acting against international law.

You'll have to forgive my insistence on being pedantic, but it looks like an invasion. Again, my opinion is not set in stone, but you haven't given me any reason to see it differently, at least according to any of your arguments.

But even if I go along with your premise (which I don't), if Greece wants to say screw international law, then that is a breaking of their agreement with other countries. But once they say screw international law, it's now a matter of Greece deciding what it wants for itself, and Greece appears to be undergoing an attempted invasion by "non natives".

Your argument that international law has anything to do with this is irrelevant, as Greece has decided to say screw it. Now it's between Greece, those trying to get in, and the dictionary.

Cito di Pense wrote:

In Sitchu wrote:
As I explained to you earlier, geopolitcal borders are a fact, but this has not always been the case. If your point is that they are a fiction, deconstruct away.

I reject your premise as I'm not a nationalist.

In Sitchu wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
As I explained to you earlier, geopolitcal borders are a fact, but this has not always been the case. If your point is that they are a fiction, deconstruct away.

I reject your premise as I'm not a nationalist.

I don't care what you call yourself. If you want to label yourself anti-nationalist, a label isn't an argument.

Cito di Pense wrote:

In Sitchu wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

In Sitchu wrote:
As I explained to you earlier, geopolitcal borders are a fact, but this has not always been the case. If your point is that they are a fiction, deconstruct away.

I reject your premise as I'm not a nationalist.

My premise is not nearly as fucked as yours is, since you're trying to re-define the word "invasion".

No I'm not. I'm giving the dictionary definition of it and applying it. But since you brought it up, are you suggesting that nationalism be applied to this situation? Go ahead, be my guest.

(My reply is to your message before you edited it).

In Sitchu wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

In Sitchu wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

I reject your premise as I'm not a nationalist.

My premise is not nearly as fucked as yours is, since you're trying to re-define the word "invasion".

No I'm not. I'm giving the dictionary definition of it and applying it. But since you brought it up, are you suggesting that nationalism be applied to this situation? Go ahead, be my guest.

(My reply is to your message before you edited it).

No, I have no particular interest in bringing nationalism to bear on this. Greece is a member state of the EU and that has some bearing on whether or not Greece permits free and undocumented immigration of citizens of non-EU states across its border with non-EU member states. Even EU states which do not share borders with non-EU states exercise control over the residence of persons not considered citizens of EU member states.

In Sitchu wrote:Spearthrower,

I don't know why you're still saying that I haven't defined the word invasion. I have. I gave you the dictionary definition.

Let's look at what I actually said:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/histo ... l#p2734054

Spearthrower wrote:
I would assume that having listed the dictionary definitions, you'd want to set about eliding those which are irrelevant to the concerned topic, not trying to find ways in which the quirkiest definitions can be sufficiently ambiguous to offer some form of response to your OP.

So, you didn't give 'the' dictionary definition, you gave the entire entry on the word 'invasion'. You have since then bounced around between different definitions.

The thing is that the same words can have different meanings in different contexts. If you want to have an unambiguous context, then you're going to need to clearly decide on which definition you're going to employ. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Spearthrower wrote:
Let's apply it to this situation, as if I haven't done so already.

You can look it up here :

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/invasion?s=t
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/colloc ... h/invasion

So, according to your own citation... in the first link, the only relevant definition is:

an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.

In other words; not remotely applicable to asylum seekers

The second citation you've offered is a collocation definition, meaning it's talking about words that are frequently used in combination with the target word thereby giving different contexts and meanings.

So why exactly are you being so coy when it comes to defining this word? It's the entire basis of your thread, and yet you don't seem to want to address anything substantively.

In Sitchu wrote:
Connotations aside, and sticking only to the facts...

* There is a large number of people from outside Greece, trying to get into Greece.
* The government of Greece has not invited them into their country, nor given them permission to do so, nor given even the vaguest indication or hint that they would be allowed in.
* The government of Greece is employing military methods to keep them out.
* Locals also do not want them in their country and have taken action to try and keep them out.
* There have been reports of those trying to enter Greece using violence at the border.

1) They're asylum seekers
2) Asylum seekers are never 'invited' - they're 'seeking'. By default, they already have permission to seek asylum as per the Human Rights Convention, and Greece is a signing nation so you're completely wrong, plus, as I have already pointed out, asylum was granted to over half the asylum seekers in 2019.
3) No, they're not.
4) Irrelevant as I just told you.
5) Nice try but bullshit. You don't characterize all asylum seekers by rare incidents by individuals.

For me, you're now quacking ever more loudly.

In Sitchu wrote:Earlier you were talking about how if you're invited it means it's not an invasion. You can't say that in this case. Now you're saying that Greece is acting against international law.

Earlier I said that your specific analogy was flawed, and then when you tried to twist it, I told you that you don't get to fuck around with an analogy to try to make it work for you.

I am not saying Greece is acting against international law, I am saying that if it was acting as per your assertions that it would be acting against international law - it would be in violation of the Human Rights Convention and EU Law. But as that's not what's happening, and as your scenarios are concocted make-believe, I am clearly not agreeing with you.

In Sitchu wrote:You'll have to forgive my insistence on being pedantic, but it looks like an invasion.

I have all the patience in the world for pedantry, but pedantry is not what you're doing. It doesn't look anything like an invasion - quite the contrary: it looks like asylum seeking. Pedantry is a motion towards accuracy, not to motivated fantasy.

I am sad to say that my prediction in the 3rd post was accurate: you've come to this forum to engage a bunch of strangers with your ideologically motivated fiction. It's not going to fly, chap.

In Sitchu wrote: Again, my opinion is not set in stone, but you haven't given me any reason to see it differently, at least according to any of your arguments.

Go bullshit at someone else, please. I just quoted you saying that immigration cannot be seen as invasion, only for you to contradict yourself a few posts later. Do you think we're fucking naive? We see your ilk come here all the bloody time banging on about immigration as if people fleeing poverty and warfare represents an invasion, and it's bullshit. Nasty bullshit at that.

In Sitchu wrote:But even if I go along with your premise (which I don't), if Greece wants to say screw international law, then that is a breaking of their agreement with other countries.

Don't strawman me.

In Sitchu wrote: But once they say screw international law, it's now a matter of Greece deciding what it wants for itself, and Greece appears to be undergoing an attempted invasion by "non natives".

Fuck off.

In Sitchu wrote:Your argument that international law has anything to do with this is irrelevant, as Greece has decided to say screw it. Now it's between Greece, those trying to get in, and the dictionary.

You're now engaging in full scale fiction.

Are you the guy who was here before touting this shit? Any which way, I'm afraid you've shown your hand, so you can drop the act.

Spearthrower wrote:

In Sitchu wrote:I'm rather interested in looking at non-military invasions and conquests throughout history, if anyone has any good examples.

Both 'invasion' and 'conquest' necessarily suggest the military component.

Perhaps you want to suggest a specific instance of the kind of thing you're interested in?

Not meant to insinuate anything, but this forum has a track record of attracting certain types of 'interested parties' so please excuse me for imagining that you're imagining Muslim migration to Europe as being an example of the kind of thing.

Sad that this is so predictable.

In Sitchu wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
My premise is not nearly as fucked as yours is, since you're trying to re-define the word "invasion".

No I'm not. I'm giving the dictionary definition of it and applying it.

We weren't born yesterday In Sitchu - you have categorically not given a dictionary definition that would allow the characterization of asylum seekers as 'invaders'.

Tuco said it's an invasion, a non military one. I'm inclined to agree but I'm not 100% decided. I'm certainly not convinced by your arguments spearthrower. By the way you really need to keep up with events. Greece is using their military and there has been friction with locals. Google is your friend.

Oh and by the way, these asylum seekers don't seem to be very respectful of the country which they are trying to get into. I can't imagine this is helping their case :

https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... i-moria%2F

https://www.orthodoxianewsagency.gr/epi ... sti-moria/

In Sitchu wrote:I'm merely trying to establish whether or not the situation meets the definition of an invasion.

"This situation" concerns refugees, right? So, what is a refugee? Have you asked yourself that question? It seems not, so I'll help you out because that's the sort of bloke I am; maybe a little sarcastic or even brusque at times, but always helpful when anyone pretends to innocently ask leading questions with a particular answer already fully formed in their mind.

So, you say you have given dictionary definitions. Let's open a dictionary and have a look, shall we?

refugee

refugee
/rɛfjʊˈdʒiː/
noun
noun: refugee; plural noun: refugees

a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

That's what it says. In case you try to ignore the obvious, let me parse this for you, highlighting the key aspects of the definition:

forced to leave their country

escape war, persecution, or natural disaster

To distil the definition a little further, we are left with three words no refugee remains a refugee without: escape, leave and forced.

Now look at what it means to invade. Out comes the trusty dictionary again:

invade
[ in-veyd ]

verb (used with object), in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing.

to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent
to enter like an enemy
to enter as if to take possession
to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease
to intrude upon

Being forced to leave a country in order to escape war, persecution or natural disaster appears to not be part of the definition of the act of invading.

Rhetorical question now: Are you really, truly, genuinely stumped when wondering if a stream of refugees can be likened to an invasion, or are you just one of many blow-ins wanting to promote a particular idea by devious and devious means? In view of the fact that all but the first of your 31 posts so far are in a thread of your own creations, it seems to me the latter applies.

That is a good point, Hermit, however, there are also migrants among them.

We've either been trolled, albeit subtle way, or I don't really want to say.

To me its absolutely unbelievable that someone, who claims to be an immigrant her/himself, to direct question whether particulars of her/his initial inquiry regard immigration or not, answers negatively.

Then looks up definition, or apparently looks up definition, drops conquest because that is a no go, and proceeds to ensure to have an open mind, to Tuco tuco said.

Invasion has been used years back as the article I linked shows, together with and now I quote: “swarms” and “invasion” of “marauder”.

We gonna debate swarms next? I know the forum is slow. tuco said lol

In Sitchu wrote:By the way you really need to keep up with events. Greece is using their military and there has been friction with locals. Google is your friend.

By the way, you're talking shite and I doubt anyone here is unaware of that.

Perhaps you need to blow your dogwhistle harder?

In Sitchu wrote:I'm certainly not convinced by your arguments spearthrower.

But you're somehow convinced to do a 180 in a handful of posts...

In Sitchu wrote:I'm not sure how one would consider immigration to be an invasion.

In Sitchu wrote:What I'm doing is suggesting that perhaps immigration on a very large scale (as with our example), under the circumstances in which it is occurring in this particular case (referring to the fact that the gov and locals do not want them to enter Greece), could be considered an invasion. A non military one.

And again, no one here was born yesterday: coming to an internet forum and immediately launching into a precanned politically contentious quasi-fascist diatribe comparing asylum seekers to invaders then pretending you're not a fucking duck.

QUACK!

tuco wrote:That is a good point, Hermit, however, there are also migrants among them.

You mean some refugees have been granted migrant status? How would that affect my argument?

Spearthrower, I've already told you. Google is your friend. You could have looked it up, but of course you know best.

WAR ZONE Greece deploys warships to Lesbos fearing migrant ‘invasion’ as Erdogan claims MILLIONS will flood into Europe.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11082281/ ... od-europe/

By the way, why is the Turkish government so keen to have them enter Greece (from where many of them will no doubt move on to northern and western Europe)? Surely Turkey would benefit if they stayed where they are?

Don't you think?

And why is Erdogan saying that millions will flood into Europe? Do you know?

And if all those thousands of men are refugees, surely they should be in their own countries in the first place, where they're needed by their wives and children. It seems selfish to just up and leave. Immigration, no problem, but this appears to be something else.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translat ... i-moria%2F

https://www.orthodoxianewsagency.gr/epi ... sti-moria/

Again, my opinion is not set in stone, but it really is starting to look as though this is a non military invasion, based on the dictionary definition.

In Sitchu wrote:...it really is starting to look as though this is a non military invasion, based on the dictionary definition.

No, it is not. I've explained to you here why - per dictionary definitions - refugees are not invaders. Just because there are a lot of refugees, military force is employed to stop them from coming into the country or people call the process an invasion, it is not an invasion, it is not an invasion except in a figurative sense of the word. It's not even a non-military invasion.

To spare you the effort of looking the meaning of "figurative" up, and then interpret it in a misleading way, I tell you what it means. It means non-literal or metaphorical in the same way "belief" is often used. Someone might say "I believe my dog loves me." or "I believe I'll have a beer." but only a fool or a dishonest debater would equate either of those with the meaning of the word used in a sentence like "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible."

But yeah, every time you post it comes clearer where you're coming from and where you are trying to take us. Your clumsy subterfuge lies exposed and the fraudulence of your argument dooms your attempt to failure. When you asked for examples of non-military invasions and conquests 155 posts ago, 31 of which are yours, you were already preparing to convince us that there is such a thing as a non-military invasion and conquest, and that the influx of Syrian refugees in Greece was an example of it.

In Sitchu wrote:
Again, my opinion is not set in stone, but it really is starting to look as though this is a non military invasion, based on the dictionary definition.

I think the onus is on you to put some clear figures how many refugees it takes to form an "invasion", unless you're just deploying the same rhetoric you're quoting. How many? 100? 1000? 100000? You seem a philosophical type, so perhaps you''ve run across the Sorites paradox. Your worthless opinion is not set in anything except dancing pixels; a literal-minded fellow like you should find that illuminating, so to speak.

In Sitchu wrote:
And why is Erdogan saying that millions will flood into Europe? Do you know?

Erdogan is a politician, not your go-to authority. Perhaps that fact has escaped you.

In Sitchu wrote:S
Don't you think?

Do some thinking of your own before asking rhetorical questions. Fapping a dictionary isn't thinking, but yes, around here, we're used to seeing what you're up to.

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:That is a good point, Hermit, however, there are also migrants among them.

You mean some refugees have been granted migrant status? How would that affect my argument?

I mean that some of them are not refugees but migrants so your argument, that refugees cannot invade, doest not cover the anti-invasion argument fully. As I predicted and as we've just seen in post #154.

tuco wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:That is a good point, Hermit, however, there are also migrants among them.

You mean some refugees have been granted migrant status? How would that affect my argument?

I mean that some of them are not refugees but migrants so your argument, that refugees cannot invade, doest not cover the anti-invasion argument fully. As I predicted and as we've just seen in post #154.

Opinions are either neutral or accepting of mass migration and harboring of refugees or else they are opposed. Calling it an "invasion" is inflammatory rhetoric used in expressing opposition that chooses not to articulate the basis of the opposition. I am not saying some opposition cannot be expressed reasonably, but hiding from that obligation is obvious.

tuco wrote:

Hermit wrote:

tuco wrote:That is a good point, Hermit, however, there are also migrants among them.

You mean some refugees have been granted migrant status? How would that affect my argument?

I mean that some of them are not refugees but migrants so your argument, that refugees cannot invade, doest not cover the anti-invasion argument fully. As I predicted and as we've just seen in post #154.

Yes, it does. Migrants are not invaders either because, unlike invaders they

do not enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent
do not enter like an enemy
do enter as if to take possession
do not enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease
do not intrude upon

On the contrary, they enter after seeking and receiving permission. Obtaining a migrant's visa is basically an invitation to enter the country in order to help it grow.

In some instances they are even paid to come in. The Australian government paid all but $20 of the cost for each of my parents, my four siblings and me to travel from Germany to Sydney. Between 1963 and 1977 the good ship the RHMS Ellinis



brought in up to 1668 migrants like us at a time. We did call it an invasion, but only as a joke. You see, per dictionary definition invaders do come with hostile intent, etc. It's not stuff migrants with government-issued permits to enter are known for.

...