An invasion is often a temporary military takeover to defeat an enemy or seize resources. Colonization is a permanent project of settlement, displacement, and control that aims to replace local societies with a new permanent order. Settler colonialism is genocidal by nature, invasion can even be legal .Colonizer is the stronger and more accurate term
colonization happens through the action of invasion. they are currently actively invading and “invader” has more “social understanding” than “colonizer” does.
imho, “invader” fits better because they are a fascist force of pieces of zionist inhuman trash doing an invading.
The allies for example invaded Germany it was a temporary invasion. Colonization like I said is permanent and the goal is to replace the local people with other group of people from foreigner land which is always genocidal, invasion is not aleays genocidal . I don’t think the idea that people has more social understanding of what invader mean then colonizer is true.
i mean fair but you have to admit that the transition to “raze houses and put up new ones in the west bank that we already sold on markets in nyc” is a meatspace invasion. you can’t have colonization without invasion and i think from an “agitprop” pov the term invasion upsets more audiences than what you and i, nerds for this stuff, would say…
I think you are proving my point since colonization include invasion it is better to use the term colonization because it show that the intent is genocide while invasion could include legal invasion or illegal invasion without the goal of genocide
An invasion is often a temporary military takeover to defeat an enemy or seize resources. Colonization is a permanent project of settlement, displacement, and control that aims to replace local societies with a new permanent order. Settler colonialism is genocidal by nature, invasion can even be legal .Colonizer is the stronger and more accurate term
colonization happens through the action of invasion. they are currently actively invading and “invader” has more “social understanding” than “colonizer” does.
imho, “invader” fits better because they are a fascist force of pieces of zionist inhuman trash doing an invading.
The allies for example invaded Germany it was a temporary invasion. Colonization like I said is permanent and the goal is to replace the local people with other group of people from foreigner land which is always genocidal, invasion is not aleays genocidal . I don’t think the idea that people has more social understanding of what invader mean then colonizer is true.
i mean fair but you have to admit that the transition to “raze houses and put up new ones in the west bank that we already sold on markets in nyc” is a meatspace invasion. you can’t have colonization without invasion and i think from an “agitprop” pov the term invasion upsets more audiences than what you and i, nerds for this stuff, would say…
I think you are proving my point since colonization include invasion it is better to use the term colonization because it show that the intent is genocide while invasion could include legal invasion or illegal invasion without the goal of genocide