Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Kramodlog]

So does "The Pirate Bay."

We need more pirates to fight global warming.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah... no. You don't get to assert something as true and challenge others to prove you wrong. You have to prove the assertion is true.

I haven't. It's plainly true that someone else cannot control whether you are a state or not without using force.

Being sovereign is completely dependent on whether or not others determine if you're a state or not. Being sovereign all but literally means "everyone agrees that I'm the one in charge in this territory"; that everyone means that it requires the explicit (via treaty or victory) or implicit (via a lack of will to challenge it) acknowledgement by other states.

sov·er·eign·ty
ˈsäv(ə)rən(t)ē/
noun
1. supreme power or authority.

2. the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.

3. a self-governing state.

I seem to have missed it. Perhaps you can show me where in there the state is dependent on others for its sovereignty. I'll wait.

Daesh needs to be capable of keeping their territory before they can be considered a state. For now, they're just an occupying force.

ISIS is capable. So far no one has been able to take it from them and air strikes won't succeed.

It's a non sequitur because if international law doesn't apply, then the label of being a state is meaningless. Being a state requires there to be one government in control of a group of people and/or territory, but in the case of Daesh-occupied parts of Syria and Iraq, there are multiple governments asserting control (albeit, Daesh's occupation is making it difficult for those other governments of carrying out that control).

That's a load of tripe. Being a state has the same meaning that it has always had. International law didn't create statehood and can't strip it. Further, there is only one group in control of ISIS controlled territory. ISIS. That ISIS' territory exists inside of other states that could not maintain control is irrelevant. We're not talking about control of the former borders of Syria and Iraq, where there are multiple groups controlling different part of those borders. We're talking about the borders of ISIS controlled territory where there are no longer any competing governments.

 

[Maxperson]

You seem to be conflating the idea that people can object to how a state is run (Iran, North Korea) with whether or not it is a legitimate state to begin with.

I'm not conflating anything. You just missed the point. The point is that many countries only pay lip service to their proclamations like sanctions, embargoes and statehood, and then trade anyway. ISIS currently has trading partners.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/isis-reward-money/

Palestine is also a state, regardless of the UN votes.

 

[Maxperson]

But I want Sealand to be real! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

Let's see.

A) ISIS has a permanent population.
B) We can define its territory, though that line is probably going to expand.
C) ISIS has set up a government.
D) ISIS has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Yep. Even under those definitions it's a state.

 

[Kramodlog]

Let's see.

A) ISIS has a permanent population.
B) We can define its territory, though that line is probably going to expand.
C) ISIS has set up a government.
D) ISIS has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Yep. Even under those definitions it's a state.

You're barking up the wrong tree. ISIS is definately trying to be a state. It is funding schools and hospitals, minting coins and issuing passports in an effort to fill the role of government. It isn't there yet, but if it can hold on it will get there.

Right now it is a revolutionary organisation that rejects a good part of the status quo in the region. This is in part why so many states oppose it. Not its ideology. Cause frankly, Saudi Arabia shares that ideology and acts just as badly. Heck, Saudi Arabia is arguably the ideological cradle of ISIS.

ISIS is in the news because it is a new player that is trying to carve itself a seat at the table and a lot of people do not like that.

 

[Orlax]

Let's see.

A) ISIS has a permanent population.
B) We can define its territory, though that line is probably going to expand.
C) ISIS has set up a government.
D) ISIS has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Yep. Even under those definitions it's a state.

Sovereignty is only possible with the acquiescence of those surrounding it. If I claim my house as a sovereign state it is a defined territory with a permanent population with a dictatorial government that could enter into relations with another state. Those facts are irrelevant because until the states surrounding me or at least a large number of super powers accept that I am a sovereign state I'm nothing but a nutter trying to claim a territory that is not actually mine in the eyes of the various world governments. Sovereignty is only capable given the acknowledgment of other states and a number of them at that.

 

[Maxperson]

Sovereignty is only possible with the acquiescence of those surrounding it. If I claim my house as a sovereign state it is a defined territory with a permanent population with a dictatorial government that could enter into relations with another state. Those facts are irrelevant because until the states surrounding me or at least a large number of super powers accept that I am a sovereign state I'm nothing but a nutter trying to claim a territory that is not actually mine in the eyes of the various world governments. Sovereignty is only capable given the acknowledgment of other states and a number of them at that.

This is only true if like you or I, we are surrounded by someone powerful enough to stop us, and if we are actually surrounded. ISIS is neither. It has water access and its neighbors aren't powerful enough to stop it.

 

[Orlax]

This is only true if like you or I, we are surrounded by someone powerful enough to stop us, and if we are actually surrounded. ISIS is neither. It has water access and its neighbors aren't powerful enough to stop it.

Thus acquiescing to the sovereignty, and not all the countries around them are acquiescing, and as far as I know no super powers are actually treating them as a sovereign state. They are treating them as an insurgent force within existing states. No one's sending diplomats to isis, no one's talking about trying to get a peace treaty with them, everyone's pretty much agreed that we need to kill them, and they seemingly have no interest in anything resembling a diplomatic relationship with anyone.

 

[Umbran]

A) ISIS has a permanent population.

I am not sure that's really accurate, given how many people within their area of influence are attempting to flee.

B) We can define its territory, though that line is probably going to expand.

This seems highly debatable, on several levels. First, let us start with how they've declared their own statehood several different times, with different parameters, the most recent of which, technically, encompasses the entire planet. Making aggrandized and nonsensical claims like that weakens their claim on statehood, as it interferes with their ability to enter into relations with other states.

Be that as it may, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) was declared a bit less than a year ago, and its borders have been in flux since that time, since they are actively at war, and battles that move their borders are on the order of 100 casualties (meaning, small). It is new and ever changing - that doesn't sound like well-defined territorial boundaries to me.

C) ISIS has set up a government.

I question this as a requirement, insofar as it can be met by merely saying, "We have a government!" Any definition that can be met by 5-year-olds in a tree house probably isn't a solid definition.

D) ISIS has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Can it, really? Name one other state with which is has formal relations - ambassadors and treaties. I don't think being sent a several million dollars by the Saudis in ways that allow the Saudis plausible deniability count as "relations". Nor do trade arrangements that would be called "smuggling" by the states through which goods pass - bribing border guards does not count as having "relations".

 

[Maxperson]

Thus acquiescing to the sovereignty, and not all the countries around them are acquiescing, and as far as I know no super powers are actually treating them as a sovereign state. They are treating them as an insurgent force within existing states. No one's sending diplomats to isis, no one's talking about trying to get a peace treaty with them, everyone's pretty much agreed that we need to kill them, and they seemingly have no interest in anything resembling a diplomatic relationship with anyone.

Seriously? Your argument is that because they don't need their neighbors and their neighbors are too weak to stop it, that it isn't sovereign? No. As for not sending diplomats to other nations, that isn't required. They only need to be capable of it, not decide to do it.