Maybe we can come up with a list of what mohummad and muslims have phobias about???

So the USA diplomatically recognises the Bloods and Crips? Wow, you do surprise me. I thought that they were illegal gangs, I was unaware that the USA acknowledges the status of the Bloods or the Crips as a state or government.

P.S. check this this wiki article it will explain the meaning of diplomatic recognition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_recognition

I disagree with you on the last point. If targeting of civilians is sanctioned by the state then that state is a terrorist one! However if some idiot with a gun decides to go on a rampage, and he just happens to be British, then that does not make Britain a terrorist state. I don’t know how you would like to define “state sanctioned”, but it would in reality require the approval of the Tony Blair (otherwise it is not sanctioned by the head of state!). I don’t like old Tone that much, but I don’t believe he is capable of sanctioning an attack on civilians.

Recognise is not a soft word, there is nothing soft about it. I know you don’t like “definitions” but they do give the accepted true meaning of a word, which can be useful (unless you want to make up your own language…….). The definition of RECOGNISE: “to acknowledge formally as entitled to treatment as a political unit.” Could you tell me what exactly is “soft” about that?

All I have stated is that the state of Palestine is recognised by most of the world (see my post number 32). Is that incorrect? The point is that the recognition of the state of Palestine demonstrates that most of the world agrees that Palestinians should be allowed to form their own state (if you disagree with this point, then please be good enough to give reasons for your arguments, supported with factual authority). You can yap on about how about it does not own any territory till the cows come home, but you are merely evading the issue.

So far as my statement “You cannot dispute the factual accuracy of the first two, look in any encyclopaedia and you will see that they are correct” is concerned, there is the fact that some might argue (rather pedantically) that there is no such thing as a terrorist state, however it seems logical to call a state that commits acts of terror a terrorist state.

Next, I have not stated that the PLO is not a terrorist organisation. But that is not the point, if you look on the PLO article on wiki, it states that: “In numerous Resolutions by the General Assembly the PLO was declared the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People”.”. It does not matter whether or not you think that their commission of acts of terror ilegitimises the PLO, if you can persuade the UN of that then your point is valid.

For a fairly comprehensive list of the targeting of civilians by both sides of the 2006 Lebanon War have a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeting_of_civilian_areas_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

There we go, I am sure that you will post again with another load of baseless and irrelevant grandstanding.

as far as the first two go… you are calling something a ‘fact’ based on a word like ‘recognise’, which is a soft word, and please dont let me have to explain that im sure you can understand that ‘recognise’ can mean a thousand things, and not a single one of them involves the actual existence of a state of palestine… which is the issue, not who is ‘recognised’ lol. your 2nd statement, although it might be fact, does nothing to show that the PLO is not a terrorist organization. fine, you have shown the FACT that the usa and israel believe that the palestinian people are represented by terrorists. thanks for point out what everyone already knows.

as for your 3rd… i will be brief. PROOF?! WHERE?!

“3. The state of Israel has deliberately targeted civilians, and is therefore a terrorist state.”

FALLACY!

PLEASE LOOK UP THAT WORD, AS ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS FALL INTO ONE OF THE COMMON CATEGORIES OF FALLACY.

go ahead and post again with something ridiculous so u can have the last word, debater.