waiv

waiv t1_jadr81w wrote

See, the problem here is that you already decided that Santa Anna was a despost in ,when any cursory knowledge of Mexican politics and history would tell you that back then Santa Anna wouldn't even exercise the authority he had as the elected president, preferring to spend his time between his Hacienda or in military campaigns. When the Tornell Decree was voted for Congress he was already in San Luis Potosi organizing the Texas campaign. The law was repealed a few days before the battle of San Jacinto.

Also treating filibusters as pirates was the standard back then. Wasn't worse than what happened in San Jacinto.

1

waiv t1_jacwb5i wrote

Yeah, that was the law in Mexico, foreigners who raised weapons against the Mexican nation should be treated as pirates and summarily executed. They captured a newcomer group in Copano and since they surrendered and didn't fight they were spared.

The law was repealed before the battle of San Jacinto, where the Americans shot people who surrendered under a white flag.

Mind you, Santa Anna's army treated civilians better than the American army in the Mexican American war, there were plenty of atrocities against civilians back then, including the rape and pillage of Huamantla.

0

waiv t1_jacqmmy wrote

1

waiv t1_jacbfon wrote

So Egypt moved to the border not because they intended to attack Israel but because they thought Israel was going to attack Syria? Thanks for explaining, even less reasons to justify the Israeli attack.

Were they even in "battle formations"? They had been stationed there for three weeks doing nothing when Israel attacked treacherously.

1

waiv t1_ja8v4se wrote

Yeah, same peacekeepers who offered to be relocated on the Israel side of the border but were refused, if the Israeli government was really worried about Nasser attacking, why didn't they allow them to take new positions?

Meh, they were worse causus belli before and cooler heads prevailed, for instance the IDF invaded Jordan, destroyed a jordanian town and attacked their army in 1966 and that didn't led to war.

It's not like the blockade of a port that was barely used back then required an urgent action without resorting to diplomacy.

Anyway, seems silly to blame the Arab countries for all the wars when clearly Israel started at least half of them.

−3

waiv t1_ja5zm64 wrote

It's silly trying to portray Israel as a poor victim when they have dished as much as they have received, the 1956 and 1967 wars were started by Israel, plenty of incursions against Gaza and the West Bank before 1967, including blowing up whole towns and attacking the Jordanian army when the Jordanian King was on peace talks with Israel.

−8

waiv t1_j37u5t1 wrote

That turned out to be a lie, they had an operation to arrest him back in 2019, they just botched it badly because they used his new "National Guard" to do it and they were inexperienced in these kind of operations. Now they used the Marines and they extracted him quickly, but the government failed to defend the city.

8