Attacks on Civilians

[Saigon]

Right, because Obama knows there have been no genocides since WWI....

Kulaks
Holocaust
Purges
Great Leap Forward
Cultural Revolution
Killing Fields
Baby Doc
Ortega slaughtering the Mesquito Indians

It's probably worth checking what the word 'genocide' means, because at the moment not one of those examples meets any dictionary definition of genocide, except for the Holocaust.

Here is a definition:

The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/genocide

Genocide does NOT mean mass slaughter. Genocide denotes the slaughter (or attempted slaughter) of an entire people or ethnicity - Kulaks are not a people, and the GLF and Cultural Revolution did not target any specific race or people. Pol Pot and Duvallier largely targetted people of their own ethnicity, hence genocide is unlikely unless they intended to commit suicide at the end of it. Duvalier killed a lot of people, but hardly enough that he could be accused of trying to wipe his people out!

The Miskito people faired badly under the FSLN, but I wouldn't consider it in any way genocide and relatively few people were actually killed - they were oppressed to some extent, but that is about it. There has also been quite some exaggeration about that, I think.

There ARE examples of genocide since WWI, but I somehow doubt you'd have heard of them - Rwandan Tutsi's were victims of genocide, and you could make a case for Burma committing genocide against the Shan people. Darfur is one example that could be considered. There are a few others if you are interested.

And yes, I am sure you will now pretend that you knew all of this - you always do.

 

[irosie91]

saigon----there is really no CLEAR and absolute definition of genocide---
-I disagree with
your exclusion of several of the events listed as genocide as NOT being
genocide----for example---the kulaks certainly were a class or "group" of
people and the historic presecution and starvation of that group--certainly is,,
in my mind---a GENOCIDE

death is not the only way to destroy a group----enslavement is another---
destroying their culture is another -----a few Mayans are still around---
I would certainly not say that the mayans were not subjected to GENOCIDE.
Aztecs are all gone----their culture was destroyed-----<<<genocide

 

[Saigon]

iRosie -

I agree that the term is disputed, but certainly everyone seems to agree that it is basially an attempt to wipe out a particular ethnic group. One could argue the Kulaks, certainly, but Uncensored's list is clearly based on a misunderstanding as to what the term means, otherwise he wouldn't include the Cultural Revolution etc.

 

[irosie91]

iRosie -

I agree that the term is disputed, but certainly everyone seems to agree that it is basially an attempt to wipe out a particular ethnic group. One could argue the Kulaks, certainly, but Uncensored's list is clearly based on a misunderstanding as to what the term means, otherwise he wouldn't include the Cultural Revolution etc.

to which "cultural revolution" do you refer as not being "genocide"? If you
refer to the cultural revolution in Iran----I disagree----there has been a very concerted
effort to get rid of specific groups-----somewhat successful----

 

[Roudy]

Right, because Obama knows there have been no genocides since WWI....

Kulaks
Holocaust
Purges
Great Leap Forward
Cultural Revolution
Killing Fields
Baby Doc
Ortega slaughtering the Mesquito Indians

It's probably worth checking what the word 'genocide' means, because at the moment not one of those examples meets any dictionary definition of genocide, except for the Holocaust.

Here is a definition:

The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.

genocide - definition of genocide by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Genocide does NOT mean mass slaughter. Genocide denotes the slaughter (or attempted slaughter) of an entire people or ethnicity - Kulaks are not a people, and the GLF and Cultural Revolution did not target any specific race or people. Pol Pot and Duvallier largely targetted people of their own ethnicity, hence genocide is unlikely unless they intended to commit suicide at the end of it. Duvalier killed a lot of people, but hardly enough that he could be accused of trying to wipe his people out!

The Miskito people faired badly under the FSLN, but I wouldn't consider it in any way genocide and relatively few people were actually killed - they were oppressed to some extent, but that is about it. There has also been quite some exaggeration about that, I think.

There ARE examples of genocide since WWI, but I somehow doubt you'd have heard of them - Rwandan Tutsi's were victims of genocide, and you could make a case for Burma committing genocide against the Shan people. Darfur is one example that could be considered. There are a few others if you are interested.

And yes, I am sure you will now pretend that you knew all of this - you always do.

Well there you have it....only ignorant arrogant know nothing would make such a claim! Pol Pot, one of the SYMBOLS of genocide in the 20th century, didn't "technically" commit genocide. Get a load of THIS CRAP, FOLKS:

Pol Pot and Duvallier largely targetted people of their own ethnicity, hence genocide is unlikely...

The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century
Pol Pot in Cambodia. 1975 to 1979: 2,000,000 Deaths
The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Pol Pot in Cambodia 1975-1979


Cambodian Genocide | World Without Genocide
The Cambodian Genocide refers to the attempt of Khmer Rouge party leader “Pol Pot” to nationalize and centralize the peasant farming society of Cambodia virtually overnight, in accordance with the Chinese Communist agricultural model. This resulted in the gradual devastation of over 25% of the country’s population in just three short years.

Yale University - Cambodian Genocide Program CGP
Cambodian Genocide Program | Yale University
The CGP, 1994-2013
The Cambodian genocide of 1975-1979, in which approximately 1.7 million people lost their lives (21% of the country's population), was one of the worst human tragedies of the last century. As in the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian genocide, in Nazi Germany, and more recently in East Timor, Guatemala, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge regime headed by Pol Pot combined extremist ideology with ethnic animosity and a diabolical disregard for human life to produce repression, misery, and murder on a massive scale. On July 18, 2007, Cambodian and international co-prosecutors at the newly established mixed UN/Cambodian tribunal in Phnom Penh found evidence of "crimes against humanity, genocide, grave breaches of the Geneva Convention, homicide, torture and religious persecution."

 

[Roudy]

iRosie -

I agree that the term is disputed, but certainly everyone seems to agree that it is basially an attempt to wipe out a particular ethnic group. One could argue the Kulaks, certainly, but Uncensored's list is clearly based on a misunderstanding as to what the term means, otherwise he wouldn't include the Cultural Revolution etc.

to which "cultural revolution" do you refer as not being "genocide"? If you
refer to the cultural revolution in Iran----I disagree----there has been a very concerted
effort to get rid of specific groups-----somewhat successful----

Irose why do you even engage this ignoramus who tries to act important? He is a legend in his own mind!

Pol Pot didn't commit genocide?! Ha ha ha. Unreal! Absolutely hilarious!

You heard it first on the USMB!

 

[irosie91]

Roudy---it seems to me----that just in my own little life-time, there have been
GENOCIDES aplenty. When I learned a bit about the armenian genocide
and the holocaust-----I was very very young and-----and they seemed to be
ANCIENT HISTORY to me-----but the biafran genocide was not ancient history
when I was an adolescent images of starving babies dead in the dust
showed up-------to me that was GENOCIDE ---------wasn't it?

 

[Saigon]

to which "cultural revolution" do you refer as not being "genocide"? -

The Cultural Revolution (note capital letters) refers to China.

It was patently not genocide.

 

[irosie91]

to which "cultural revolution" do you refer as not being "genocide"? -

The Cultural Revolution (note capital letters) refers to China.

It was patently not genocide.

Ok I would agree that it was not genocide to the extent that
Stalin's desctruction of the kulaks was in that it did not involve
a -----kind of "ethnic group" It was more like the French
revolutions murder of men women and children for being
of the "elite" class. -------elitocide-----------ok? a kind of
genteel kind of "genocide" Cromwell was a nice guy too.

 

[Saigon]

Pol Pot didn't commit genocide?! Ha ha ha. Unreal! Absolutely hilarious!

I doubt many Cambodians find it that funny.

The victims of Pol Pot were his own people, and it was not his intention to wipe them out. Pol Pot is guilty of murder, tyranny and probably insanity - but clearly not genocide.

I somehow doubt anyone will be surprised you don't know what the word 'genocide' means.

 

[Saigon]

to which "cultural revolution" do you refer as not being "genocide"? -

The Cultural Revolution (note capital letters) refers to China.

It was patently not genocide.

Ok I would agree that it was not genocide to the extent that
Stalin's desctruction of the kulaks was in that it did not involve
a -----kind of "ethnic group" It was more like the French
revolutions murder of men women and children for being
of the "elite" class. -------elitocide-----------ok? a kind of
genteel kind of "genocide" Cromwell was a nice guy too.

Indeed. It could be considered Democide (as could the Khmer Rouge), though that term has never really caught on, has it?!

 

[irosie91]

The Cultural Revolution (note capital letters) refers to China.

It was patently not genocide.

Ok I would agree that it was not genocide to the extent that
Stalin's desctruction of the kulaks was in that it did not involve
a -----kind of "ethnic group" It was more like the French
revolutions murder of men women and children for being
of the "elite" class. -------elitocide-----------ok? a kind of
genteel kind of "genocide" Cromwell was a nice guy too.

Indeed. It could be considered Democide (as could the Khmer Rouge), though that term has never really caught on, has it?!

very good----you are eligible to play SEMANTICS scrabble with tinsy-----

 

[Saigon]

iRosie -

I like terminology, and I think it's important. Words like 'regicide' (killing royalty) and 'fraticide' (killing a sibling) exist, even if we don't often use them. But they do help us to understand and label events accurately, even though I know many people find them pointless and tedious.

But I do think most people should understand that 'genocide' does mean killing an entire ethnic group - it doesn't mean just killing a massive number of people.

 

[irosie91]

iRosie -

I like terminology, and I think it's important. Words like 'regicide' (killing royalty) and 'fraticide' (killing a sibling) exist, even if we don't often use them. But they do help us to understand and label events accurately, even though I know many people find them pointless and tedious.

But I do think most people should understand that 'genocide' does mean killing an entire ethnic group - it doesn't mean just killing a massive number of people.

Yes----in fact real genocides never happen-----there are always survivors -----the
most successful genocide was enacted by muhummad and his followers in arabia ---
not all actually dead-----but either dead or enslaved or expelled. The genocide
of zoroastrians -----by the followers of muhummad was almost as comprehensive ---just
about---

genocide of jews by constantine, isabella and adolf abu ali-----not complete---there
were survivors

what point are you trying to make ? your point is almost as pointless
as that "point" your colleague, tinsy makes when he demands "borders"

 

[Saigon]

iRosie -

Not everyone needs to be dead for a genocide to have taken place - international law recognises the attempt to wipe a people off the planet.

The Nazis, the British in Tasmania, the Germans in Namibia, the Hutu in Rwanda and Turks in Armenia all committed genocide - they just did not succeed 100%!!!

what point are you trying to make ?

My point is only that a leader who kills tens of thousands of people has not necessarily committed genocide. For genocide to have been committed, a particular race or ethnicity must have been targetted.

 

[sealadaigh]

actually...

according to the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide which was adopted by the UN general assembly in december, 1948 and entered into force in january 1951, genocide is defines as...

...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.
&#8212; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

Genocide Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so, if you read it carefully, you can figure it out, especially that genocide is broken down into acts with an intent.

if i have a legal definition i am going to go with that beore i go with any social, political, or philosophical definitions...and then work from there.

i think the very pertinent and operative words in the above, again, are "acts" and "intent".

if anyone wants to go "ex post facto" on this, i think that might be fair in disccussion of the definition.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Is/was there a genocide in Palestine?. As this article ilustrates, some even consider Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be a genocide.

 

[editec]

Oh for goodness sakes...a debte about the meaning of GENOCIDE?!

gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Origin:
1940&#8211;45; < Greek géno ( s ) race + -cide

Can we agree that the above is the meaning of this word?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Oh for goodness sakes...a debte about the meaning of GENOCIDE?!

gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Origin:
1940–45; < Greek géno ( s ) race + -cide

Can we agree that the above is the meaning of this word?

Why would we do that when we now have International Law defining genocide for us?

 

[irosie91]

Oh for goodness sakes...a debte about the meaning of GENOCIDE?!

gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Origin:
1940–45; < Greek géno ( s ) race + -cide

Can we agree that the above is the meaning of this word?

Why would we do that when we now have International Law defining genocide for us?

I would accept it---which is why I do believe that the cultural revolution of
china-----and the revolution in Iran did include episodes of genocide ----
but I do understand that some people would include only more definite ---
GROUP DESTRUCTION motivated and accomplished episodes which
would exclude even the Armenian genocide from the list------after all ---the
overwhelming majority of armenians did survive that one