by Mike Farce » Thu Sep 28, 2023 3:22 pm
schlarry wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 2:51 pm
Mike Farce wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 1:49 pm
schlarry wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 1:33 pm
Jacked Camry wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:35 am
I question why it is that of all the things to compare Israel to, they select Nazi Germany which happens to be the worst example of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing in history
I disagree. If one reads history, there is at least one worse: King Leopold of Belgium in the Congo Free state between 1885-1908.
You missed the "state-sponsored" part. The Congo Free State was not, it was essentially a privately owned colony. This changed after Roger Casement's report of atrocities when it became the Belgian Congo.
The King was basically the absolute ruler and head of state, ergo, could his actions not be interpreted as the actions of the state of Belgium at the time...? It's a bit of a tenuous argument, is a kingdom, abused by its king, not a state?
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”, yet it was ruled by a king. Interesting question.
However, I think, regardless of whether one man - or several- make insane decisions, those who do not oppose those decisions are deemed to have approved. This logic was used against many who collaborated in genocides, even if their non-participation would have meant death.
Was Nazi Germany also not a dictatorship/kingdom, with Hitler as the absolute ruler?
The legal information Institute defines it thus: A state is a political division of a body of people that occupies a territory defined by frontiers. The state is sovereign in its territory (also referred to as jurisdiction) and has the authority to enforce a system of rules over the people living inside it.
I don't see any mandatory exclusion of kingdoms. The only reason it was private was monetary, not political. The state structure was used to finance the genocide and steal resources, just in a very corrupt way.
Any political science PhD's out there?
Leopard II was not an "absolute ruler", the country was a constitutional monarchy since well before his reign.
The Congo Free State was completely separate to Belgium.
wiki wrote:The Congo Free State, also known as the Independent State of the Congo was a large state and absolute monarchy in Central Africa from 1885 to 1908. It was privately owned by King Leopold II, the constitutional monarch of the Kingdom of Belgium. In legal terms, the two separate nations were in a "personal union".The Congo Free State was not a part of, nor did it belong to Belgium.
[quote=schlarry post_id=1063941 time=1695887460 user_id=55519]
[quote="Mike Farce" post_id=1063939 time=1695883790 user_id=55513]
[quote=schlarry post_id=1063938 time=1695882803 user_id=55519]
[quote="Jacked Camry" post_id=578019 time=1412220947 user_id=811]I question why it is that of all the things to compare Israel to, they select Nazi Germany which happens to be the worst example of state-sponsored ethnic cleansing in history
[/quote]
I disagree. If one reads history, there is at least one worse: King Leopold of Belgium in the Congo Free state between 1885-1908.
[/quote]
You missed the "state-sponsored" part. The Congo Free State was not, it was essentially a privately owned colony. This changed after Roger Casement's report of atrocities when it became the Belgian Congo.
[/quote]
The King was basically the absolute ruler and head of state, ergo, could his actions not be interpreted as the actions of the state of Belgium at the time...? It's a bit of a tenuous argument, is a kingdom, abused by its king, not a state?
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”, yet it was ruled by a king. Interesting question.
However, I think, regardless of whether one man - or several- make insane decisions, those who do not oppose those decisions are deemed to have approved. This logic was used against many who collaborated in genocides, even if their non-participation would have meant death.
Was Nazi Germany also not a dictatorship/kingdom, with Hitler as the absolute ruler?
The legal information Institute defines it thus: A state is a political division of a body of people that occupies a territory defined by frontiers. The state is sovereign in its territory (also referred to as jurisdiction) and has the authority to enforce a system of rules over the people living inside it.
I don't see any mandatory exclusion of kingdoms. The only reason it was private was monetary, not political. The state structure was used to finance the genocide and steal resources, just in a very corrupt way.
Any political science PhD's out there?
[/quote]
Leopard II was not an "absolute ruler", the country was a constitutional monarchy since well before his reign.
The Congo Free State was completely separate to Belgium.
[quote="wiki"]The Congo Free State, also known as the Independent State of the Congo was a large state and absolute monarchy in Central Africa from 1885 to 1908. It was privately owned by King Leopold II, the constitutional monarch of the Kingdom of Belgium. In legal terms, the two separate nations were in a "personal union".The Congo Free State was not a part of, nor did it belong to Belgium. [/quote]