I am sorry for the oppression your people have suffered and the indignities your people continue to have to face. I have considerable empathy.
But I'm not sure what you are arguing for here? That military action is never permissible? That peaceful protests are the only morally acceptable response to terrorism? That peaceful protests will be efficacious against an opponent who desires to exterminate or enslave you and your people? That oppression should be tolerated and accepted because then, at least, people won't die?
Is that what you think France should be doing? Do you think the French government should be handing out protest signs saying, "Hey ISIS, we'd really appreciate it if you didn't send over any more suicide bombers, because, well, we think its wrong to kill us." Do you think the French government should accept the terms ISIS offers? "Hey, yeah, no problem -- we'll accept Sharia law, we'll subjugate ourselves to Muslim rulers as second class citizens, and yep, that jizyah tax is just fine."
Do you think the Yazidi people should accept ISIS' terms? "Sure, take my nine year old daughter and sell her into sexual slavery, rape her every day and beat her if she protests or cries out."
Do you think the Jewish people should accept ISIS' terms when they say, "We are coming for you. We will hunt you down and kill every last one of you until there is not a single Jew alive on the earth."
The intent and the end goal of the actors matters a very great deal. That was the point of my post. The reason that First Nations peoples in the US, Canada and Australia, are ABLE to have peaceful protests, as well as to conduct negotiations for self-determination, land use, resources and sovereignty, is because the intent of the other party is not the subjugation, enslavement, ethnic cleansing or extermination of the First Nations peoples.
