By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fordy on 15 November 2012
Edit Thread
MrBubbles said:
fordy said:
MrBubbles said:
fordy said:
MrBubbles said:

they arent a state so it doesnt matter if someone or a group of people says they are.  ( they do not have the function, form or capabilities of a state.  they do not and cannot meet the criteria for a state without a resolution with israel.   if they acted like adults then all the pressure would be on israel to concede to a reasonable settlement.   when they behave like menaces then the focus will always be on their own improvement)


The same could be said about the United States. After all, look how they became a state.

"they arent a state so it doesnt matter if someone or a group of people says they are.  ( they do not have the function, form or capabilities of a state.  they do not and cannot meet the criteria for a state without a resolution with England.   if they acted like adults then all the pressure would be on England to concede to a reasonable settlement.   when they behave like menaces then the focus will always be on their own improvement)"

actually thats not at all comparable. honestly i cant even imagine how you might be percieving the situations as to grasp any comparison... :/


No, not comparable at all, because it conflicts with your logic, right?

What if America is denounced as a state and classified as "British territory under terrorist control"? After all, they didn't achieve independence from the English in a peaceful way, right? By your reasoning, they should have not fought back at all, and in turn that would have made the English somehow concede.

yes, it conflicts with logic.   which is why i stated it was outside the realm of my perception, leaving open space to provide your reasonings.  (im not from the US, if that was the reason for your choice of comparison btw)

well...both the realities of the world and the natures of the entities are different.  gaza and the west back are not unsatisfied colonies of israel.  britain and the US were not neighbours with conflicting claims of territory due to conflicts with other neighbours that resulted in the US never actually existing as a state.  etc etc..  the more i think about trying to make these examples the more my head hurts because they are nothing alike at all.  are you familiar with all or any of these four places you are mentioning ?

 

i wrote a couple paragraphs here but deleted them because i dont think it matters what i say when you dont even understand how the US and britain are different from israel and the palestinian territories


So your reasoning is that, because they're territories and not colonies, they have no right to be free from opression from another state? Why? Are humans in territories somehow less relevant than ones in colonies? What about when the whole state was the British Mandate of Palestine? Are you saying it's a case of first come, first served? That because Israel requested statehood before Palestine that Palestine no longer has the right?

Uh, there were conflicts with neighbours. If you thought that the reason why Israel/Palestine is different to US/England is neighbour conflicts, I guess you totally forgot about the British Canadian province, huh? No agreement to peace before US statehood as far as I saw. If there was, it was quickly breached in 1812.

The problem is, you're not seeing the double standards at play here. What can be seen as liberation to one is terrorism to another. What can be seen as the state of the US can be seen as British colonies under terrorist control to another. It all comes down to interests. What is in the best interests to the US? Middle eastern stability. How can that be achieved? Opression of the difference of opinion. You don't think America stoops to that? Take a look at the south American dictatorships supported during the Cold War as a desperate attempt to stop the flow of Communism.