Attacks on Civilians

[sealadaigh]

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

there is, it could very well be argued, an ongoing genocide of the palestinian people by the jewish state and israeli citisens, particularly the settlers, and SUPPORTED BY ZIONISTS, many right here in america.

we might want to add the bedouin people to that list of those who are having acts of genocide being directed towards them.

 

[Hossfly]

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.

Terrorism. Genocide. Undefineable terms? For 2 million Cambodians, they could give a rat's ass less if you called it 'alms giving'. Or 'rewards'. They be tot!

 

[Saigon]

Hossfly -

I agree that Cambodians might not care what the word 'genocide' means, but speaking for myself, I am interested in what words mean, and generally try to use them correctly.

Jews were the victms of genocide in 1943. The Herero were the victims of genocide in Namibia early in the 19th century.

The Cambodians were not the victims of genocide, and neither were the Palestinians.

Personally, I think the devil is in the details here.


Roudy -

This is the point where you man up and admit that you were wrong about Cambodia and the meaning of the word 'genocide'. I know you can't - I am just pointing out what an honest poster would do.

 

[Roudy]

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.

I find YOU funny. Anybody who claims that Pol Pot didn't commit genocide is an idiot to be laughed at. You are useless.

I'll take what Yale University Law School (as well as other legitimate historians) say about the Cambodian Genocide over some ignorant internet moron full of himself? Okay? Ha ha ha. You are pathetic.

 

[Roudy]

Is there a genocide of Palestinians?

My response: Ha ha ha ha! Ho ho ho!

 

[Saigon]

Anybody who claims that Pol Pot didn't commit genocide is an idiot to be laughed at. You are useless.

Not at all - it's purely and simply a question of understanding what 'genocide' means.

Many blogs and lay people use the term 'genocide' very loosely because it is easily understood, and because the difference between mass slaughter and genocide can seem to be splitting hairs, but I think it's an important distinction for anyone literate and interested enough to be able to discern.

I know one or two historians say that the Khmer Rouge could be considered genocidal in that they wiped out such a vast percentage of the Khmer people, but by far the majority of experts disagree.

This certainly isn't the first time on this forum you have laughed at people who were right - I doubt it will be the last.

 

[Saigon]

Is there a genocide of Palestinians?

My response: Ha ha ha ha! Ho ho ho!

I would say that there has not been, but again I know that some historians would argue otherwise.

Again, I don't personally find the slaughter of innocent civilians particularly amusing, although I can see that you do.



btw, Roudy - please read the Israel/Palestine forum rules on flaming. Consider this a friendly warning!

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.
— 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.

It does not mean that the genocide needs to be successful. It is merely acts toward those ends that are illegal.

 

[Saigon]

It does not mean that the genocide needs to be successful. It is merely acts toward those ends that are illegal.

Exactly - Hitler did not manage to kill every Jew in the world, but the fact that he killed six million is enough for most people to consider it a clear instance of genocide.

Ditto Rwanda, Darfur, Tasmania, Namibia and Armenia, though in the case of Tasmania the original population was reduced to around 20 people by the time the slaughter ended.

I would personally use the word 'democide' to describe Cambodia, and 'oppression' to describe the treatment of Palestinians, because I do not accept that Israel has ever had the wilful intention of simply killing off the Palestinian people entirely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

I considered using the more correct term "democide," but in this context sticking with the one bandied about was more appropriate.

 

[Saigon]

I considered using the more correct term "democide," but in this context sticking with the one bandied about was more appropriate.

Fair enough - genocide has become a bit of a catch-all term these days.

But there are plenty of examples of real genocide out there these days!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fair enough - genocide has become a bit of a catch-all term these days.

But there are plenty of examples of real genocide out there these days!

You know though, your example of the Tutsis isn't valid. There is no real difference between Tutsi and Hutu; they are merely castes of Ethnic Rwandans. The lower caste slaughtering the upper caste is another form of democide.

 

[Saigon]

Uncensored -

The situation with Rwanda is extremely complex, and you are half right. Prior to 1908 the difference was perceived by Rwandans as being more socio-economic than ethnic. However, from 1908 the Belgians did teach Rwandans, erroneously, that the differences were ethnic, and thus have largely been seen that way by Rwandans during the modern era.

The term castes isn't entirely accurate, at least not in the Indian sense. The difference was based on work (and diet) - the Tutsi being cow herders and the Hutu farmers, with Hutu being able to move from one group to another by, for instance, acquiring more than three cows.

I have written quite a lot about Rwanda during the past few years. It's one of my favourite places in Africa.

 

[sealadaigh]

Is there a genocide of Palestinians?

My response: Ha ha ha ha! Ho ho ho!

israel is attempting to destroy palestinians as a national group. that is what the occupation of the west bank is all about, as well as refusing the palestinians that are legal reugees their right to return to the land that was stolen from them.

why would a jewish person laugh about genocide.

 

[irosie91]

Is there a genocide of Palestinians?

My response: Ha ha ha ha! Ho ho ho!

israel is attempting to destroy palestinians as a national group. that is what the occupation of the west bank is all about, as well as refusing the palestinians that are legal reugees their right to return to the land that was stolen from them.

why would a jewish person laugh about genocide.

Jews do not laugh about genocide nor do they engage
in genocide. Partition of land between two hostile
groups is not THEFT-----what makes you think anything
was "stolen" from the people who decided that they
are the only legal refugees in the world ??. If the
definition of refugee which isa-respecters claim
for themselves were applied to me----I WOULD BE
A REFUGEE-----and have a claim of land STOLEN
from me. You create an insurrmountable
dilemma by your use of semantics.

an interesting question-----do people OWN land
simply because they live somewhere? or have lived?
I know people from communities that lived in lands
invaded by arabs for more than 1500 years before
arabia became islamic and invaders-----do they own the lands over
the arab invaders? When does history begin for you?
2000 years ago? or with the life of Saint Patrick?

 

[irosie91]

Fair enough - genocide has become a bit of a catch-all term these days.

But there are plenty of examples of real genocide out there these days!

You know though, your example of the Tutsis isn't valid. There is no real difference between Tutsi and Hutu; they are merely castes of Ethnic Rwandans. The lower caste slaughtering the upper caste is another form of democide.

both right-----the terms genocide and "racism" have been expanded
to a remarkable degree. Caste---classically refers to the group to
which one is born-----and within which one may marry.<<<old definition---
find it in old sociology books The definition no longer serves----too many
exceptions. I would call the tutsis and hutus "castes" even if crossover
are possible and intermarriage is possible a program to kill even a
vaguely defined and not classically defined caste-----I would call that
genocide

 

[Saigon]

iRosie -

I have never heard anyone suggest that Rwanda was not genocide, because Hutu and Tutsi are clearly defined groups. They can be visually recognised, as can the Twa people. With most of my Rwandan friends I know which group they belong too - although the terms are no longer widely used.

The word 'caste' is fine, although not as it is used in India. Tutsi were considered superior, but there was intermarriage and the superiority did not mean Hutu were slaves - they were generally just farmers. It was the exclusion from politics during the 1910 - 1960 period which created the anger.

 

[Saigon]

Jews do not laugh about genocide nor do they engage
in genocide

I would agree...but there is always going to be that ignorant minority who have very short memories.

The fact that someone like Roudy can find genocide, slaughter and killing so hilarious suggests to me that he has forgotten the Holocaust and sees no reason to treat the victims with the respect they deserve.

 

[Roudy]

Jews do not laugh about genocide nor do they engage
in genocide

I would agree...but there is always going to be that ignorant minority who have very short memories.

The fact that someone like Roudy can find genocide, slaughter and killing so hilarious suggests to me that he has forgotten the Holocaust and sees no reason to treat the victims with the respect they deserve.

Hey liar, I told you before, I find YOU hilarious. You know why, because you are so full of yourself, it prevents you from seeing how stupid and ignorant you really are.

You labeled the Cambodian Genocide as "unlikely, doesn't fall within the definition of genocide". Perhaps you can write letters to Yale and other Ivy League Universities chastising them for mistakenly labeling what Pol Pot did as genocide? What do you think genius? Let us know how it turns out, DUFUS!

You are a joke. Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

Is there a genocide of Palestinians?

My response: Ha ha ha ha! Ho ho ho!

israel is attempting to destroy palestinians as a national group. that is what the occupation of the west bank is all about, as well as refusing the palestinians that are legal reugees their right to return to the land that was stolen from them.

why would a jewish person laugh about genocide.

The Palestinians never were a "national group". Why would I find claims of genocide funny? Because the "Palestinian" population multiplied 5 times. I'm laughing at the stupidity and ignorance of those who make that claim. I guess their hatred has blinded them.