Let's complain about the Hebrew invasion of the "promised land" and then immediately talk about what we all know about what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. That bullshit would be anti-Semitism.
Dammit why can't anybody on this forum read the posts they're responding to? :groan: — frank
8000 children murdered, and apologists are outraged over…the accuracy of “genocide” and “concentration camp.” — Mikie
But I also think there is a sort of naivete of how warfare manifests. — schopenhauer1
For example, destroying Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan probably needed massive amounts of force. — schopenhauer1
What Western countries have always had a hard time figuring out is how to conduct asymmetrical warfare whereby the enemy hides amidst the population, uses tunnels, and in the case of groups like Isis and Hamas, use a variety of barbaric terrorist methods, no matter the cost to their own people. — schopenhauer1
But it does matter because there is a HUGE difference between WAR and GENOCIDE. — schopenhauer1
It was military action, taking place overwhelmingly on the eastern front, that decided that war. — Tzeentch
Similarly for Japan, Japanese resistance was not broken by bombing but by their political leadership understanding the futility in carrying on the fight. They were ready to sue for peace before the Allies nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. — Tzeentch
Strategic bombing as a means to a decisive victory is understood to be wrong in military academic circles. Given that fact, I think the intentional mass murder of civilians can't be justified even in these wars in which much was at stake, thus I view them all as war crimes and morally abject. — Tzeentch
Certainly. However, there is a crucial element that shouldn't be overlooked.
An insurgency can only be undertaken against an occupier.
So when Western countries are facing stubborn insurgencies that don't allow themselves to be rooted out, the first question should be: why are we there as the occupier in the first place? — Tzeentch
But it does matter because there is a HUGE difference between WAR and GENOCIDE. — schopenhauer1
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
↪BC What's good BC whatcha need help with? — Vaskane
↪Hanover I didn't know 1.8 million Jews have been slaughtered since the 1960's In Europe ... Oh wait they haven't, because that post is a statistical fallacy nightmare. — Vaskane
It does matter, because now you are making someone "defend a genocide" — schopenhauer1
I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said one cannot rule it out on principle, but one has to look at what is happening and what is being justified by what rhetoric. If a genocide is happening, then either one tries to defend it or one condemns it. One cannot look at some other event and claim that because the death toll was higher there, this event cannot be counted. — unenlightened
My apologies to you for not recognizing that your use of the term "genocide" is the bureaucratic definition used by the UN. I consider their definition far too broad and sweeping because it results in 'genocide' becoming an ambiguous 'basket term' covering too many hateful and destructive events and acts directed at groups being classified as "genocide".
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe the acts of the Nazi regime in Europe. He also applied it to the extensive destruction of the Armenian people by Turkey in 1915. Those two events set a high bar for an event to qualify as a genocide.
Please note, moderator, that I didn't find it necessary to describe your response in derogatory terms. — BC
my basic argument was already made here, — schopenhauer1
Whatever rules you have for your restrictions on language are your our rules that don't mean much to me. I'll continue to use the word to describe the Palestinian situation if I wish. — Vaskane
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. — BC
Those are your rules for word usage. Not mine. — Vaskane
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.