Can Terrorism ever be justified? What consitutes terrorism?

[Samson]

Many define terrorism based on their opinions, not on reason.
That means a Palestinian killing an Israel soldier in occupied Palestine is a terrorist, but US B52s carpet bombing Cambodia was not.

If you attack unarmed civilians in order to force your opinions and ideals onto others, you're probably a terrorist.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

 

[ChrisL]

But now there are "rules" of war. If you don't abide by the rules, you are going to be considered a terrorist.

These Islamic extremists are not freedom fighters by any stretch of the imagination. They fight for the opposite of freedom in most instances, Sharia Law. They move to other countries and fight for the right to live by these laws in other nations where some of the things might be illegal.

Agree. But I can see how the Palestinians could be considered "freedom fighters" AND "terrorists". In fact - have there ever been freedom fighters who have not engaged in terrorism?

It's only AFTER victory...that they are acknowledged as "freedom fighters" and their terrorist tactics swept under the rug.

So what do you think separates crimes of war from terrorism from genocide? What the Germans did to the Jews (and others) during the WWII days? That is worse than a war crime and is considered genocide because of that. Same with terrorism tactics. Whenever innocent civilians are intentionally targeted on a regular and recurring basis and when it is used as a "tactical" maneuver to achieve a political, religious, or some other goal. That is what defines terrorism for me anyways. Now, if these terrorists succeeded in wiping out an entire "race" or ethnic group/religious group, they too would be put in the category of having committed genocide rather than terrorism (not to make light of any of these things, of course).

I think there is overlap - but genocide and terrorism are two different things.

The best definition of genocide I've come across is this: What Is Genocide? — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Terrorism is a tactic who's aim is some sort of political or cultural change through targeting civiliabs - not necessarily genocide. Genocide can be accomplished through conventional warfare, not terrorism (ie - the Holocaust, the Bosnian conflict, the Rwandan conflict).

The rounding up and extermination of innocent citizens is what the Nazis did during the war. Killing all of those people in gas chambers? Throwing babies and toddlers into fire pits? Performing macabre experiments on Jewish prisoners? Doesn't sound very "conventional" to me!

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

The fighting the allied forces was probably considered conventional, but the other things they were doing were not. That is why the world was so horrified when they found out exactly what was happening and the extent to which it was happening. So, they're version of "genocide" was not accomplished using conventional methods of warfare.

 

[Coyote]

Agree. But I can see how the Palestinians could be considered "freedom fighters" AND "terrorists". In fact - have there ever been freedom fighters who have not engaged in terrorism?

It's only AFTER victory...that they are acknowledged as "freedom fighters" and their terrorist tactics swept under the rug.

So what do you think separates crimes of war from terrorism from genocide? What the Germans did to the Jews (and others) during the WWII days? That is worse than a war crime and is considered genocide because of that. Same with terrorism tactics. Whenever innocent civilians are intentionally targeted on a regular and recurring basis and when it is used as a "tactical" maneuver to achieve a political, religious, or some other goal. That is what defines terrorism for me anyways. Now, if these terrorists succeeded in wiping out an entire "race" or ethnic group/religious group, they too would be put in the category of having committed genocide rather than terrorism (not to make light of any of these things, of course).

I think there is overlap - but genocide and terrorism are two different things.

The best definition of genocide I've come across is this: What Is Genocide? — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Terrorism is a tactic who's aim is some sort of political or cultural change through targeting civiliabs - not necessarily genocide. Genocide can be accomplished through conventional warfare, not terrorism (ie - the Holocaust, the Bosnian conflict, the Rwandan conflict).

The rounding up and extermination of innocent citizens is what the Nazis did during the war. Killing all of those people in gas chambers? Throwing babies and toddlers into fire pits? Performing macabre experiments on Jewish prisoners? Doesn't sound very "conventional" to me!

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

The fighting the allied forces was probably considered conventional, but the other things they were doing were not. That is why the world was so horrified when they found out exactly what was happening and the extent to which it was happening. So, they're version of "genocide" was not accomplished using conventional methods of warfare.

I still don't think it's "terrorism" - genocide yes, but the Germans had all the power to do what they wanted.

 

[ChrisL]

Many define terrorism based on their opinions, not on reason.
That means a Palestinian killing an Israel soldier in occupied Palestine is a terrorist, but US B52s carpet bombing Cambodia was not.

If you attack unarmed civilians in order to force your opinions and ideals onto others, you're probably a terrorist.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

 

[Samson]

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

Perhaps.

However, had Germany won WWII, I doubt there would be anyone on this board who could argue against the merits of genocide.

Happily, the US won the Indian Wars, and while some might regret the way they were won, few cannot justify the result.

 

[ChrisL]

So what do you think separates crimes of war from terrorism from genocide? What the Germans did to the Jews (and others) during the WWII days? That is worse than a war crime and is considered genocide because of that. Same with terrorism tactics. Whenever innocent civilians are intentionally targeted on a regular and recurring basis and when it is used as a "tactical" maneuver to achieve a political, religious, or some other goal. That is what defines terrorism for me anyways. Now, if these terrorists succeeded in wiping out an entire "race" or ethnic group/religious group, they too would be put in the category of having committed genocide rather than terrorism (not to make light of any of these things, of course).

I think there is overlap - but genocide and terrorism are two different things.

The best definition of genocide I've come across is this: What Is Genocide? — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Terrorism is a tactic who's aim is some sort of political or cultural change through targeting civiliabs - not necessarily genocide. Genocide can be accomplished through conventional warfare, not terrorism (ie - the Holocaust, the Bosnian conflict, the Rwandan conflict).

The rounding up and extermination of innocent citizens is what the Nazis did during the war. Killing all of those people in gas chambers? Throwing babies and toddlers into fire pits? Performing macabre experiments on Jewish prisoners? Doesn't sound very "conventional" to me!

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

The fighting the allied forces was probably considered conventional, but the other things they were doing were not. That is why the world was so horrified when they found out exactly what was happening and the extent to which it was happening. So, they're version of "genocide" was not accomplished using conventional methods of warfare.

I still don't think it's "terrorism" - genocide yes, but the Germans had all the power to do what they wanted.

Right. That's what I meant. That would be taking the act of terrorism to a whole new level, which is why the term "terrorism" isn't sufficient to describe such an act. I'm just trying to point out that there are actually differences in all of these things. It's not just that you "feel" you are fighting on the side of right. How you fight and what you do counts too.

 

[Coyote]

I think there is overlap - but genocide and terrorism are two different things.

The best definition of genocide I've come across is this: What Is Genocide? — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Terrorism is a tactic who's aim is some sort of political or cultural change through targeting civiliabs - not necessarily genocide. Genocide can be accomplished through conventional warfare, not terrorism (ie - the Holocaust, the Bosnian conflict, the Rwandan conflict).

The rounding up and extermination of innocent citizens is what the Nazis did during the war. Killing all of those people in gas chambers? Throwing babies and toddlers into fire pits? Performing macabre experiments on Jewish prisoners? Doesn't sound very "conventional" to me!

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

The fighting the allied forces was probably considered conventional, but the other things they were doing were not. That is why the world was so horrified when they found out exactly what was happening and the extent to which it was happening. So, they're version of "genocide" was not accomplished using conventional methods of warfare.

I still don't think it's "terrorism" - genocide yes, but the Germans had all the power to do what they wanted.

Right. That's what I meant. That would be taking the act of terrorism to a whole new level, which is why the term "terrorism" isn't sufficient to describe such an act. I'm just trying to point out that there are actually differences in all of these things. It's not just that you "feel" you are fighting on the side of right. How you fight and what you do counts too.

Totally agree.

 

[ChrisL]

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

Perhaps.

However, had Germany won WWII, I doubt there would be anyone on this board who could argue against the merits of genocide.

Happily, the US won the Indian Wars, and while some might regret the way they were won, few cannot justify the result.

When the Europeans came to America, they did commit genocide. Was it intentional? I don't know if it they wanted to intentionally destroy all of them or not. They certainly did though, and I don't excuse that either. However, that was long before there were any kind of "rules" of war invented by some men with a lot of power.

 

[Samson]

Many define terrorism based on their opinions, not on reason.
That means a Palestinian killing an Israel soldier in occupied Palestine is a terrorist, but US B52s carpet bombing Cambodia was not.

If you attack unarmed civilians in order to force your opinions and ideals onto others, you're probably a terrorist.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Not arguing what is more excusable: Many believe taking ANY human life is wrong, but the definition is in the hands of the victor.

 

[ChrisL]

Many define terrorism based on their opinions, not on reason.
That means a Palestinian killing an Israel soldier in occupied Palestine is a terrorist, but US B52s carpet bombing Cambodia was not.

If you attack unarmed civilians in order to force your opinions and ideals onto others, you're probably a terrorist.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Not arguing what is more excusable: Many believe taking ANY human life is wrong, but the definition is in the hands of the victor.

Well, it's not a good thing to have wars and take lives, but unfortunately this is not an ideal world and we are not perfect beings.

 

[Samson]

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

Perhaps.

However, had Germany won WWII, I doubt there would be anyone on this board who could argue against the merits of genocide.

Happily, the US won the Indian Wars, and while some might regret the way they were won, few cannot justify the result.

When the Europeans came to America, they did commit genocide. Was it intentional? I don't know if it they wanted to intentionally destroy all of them or not. They certainly did though, and I don't excuse that either. However, that was long before there were any kind of "rules" of war invented by some men with a lot of power.

So you think had the Indians defeated the Europeans, they'd now be excusing the Europeans intent because it was "long before there were any kinds of 'rules' of war?"

You seem to take the concept of Rules of War seriously. Did you goggle "oxymoron?"

 

[Samson]

Many define terrorism based on their opinions, not on reason.
That means a Palestinian killing an Israel soldier in occupied Palestine is a terrorist, but US B52s carpet bombing Cambodia was not.

If you attack unarmed civilians in order to force your opinions and ideals onto others, you're probably a terrorist.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Not arguing what is more excusable: Many believe taking ANY human life is wrong, but the definition is in the hands of the victor.

Well, it's not a good thing to have wars and take lives, but unfortunately this is not an ideal world and we are not perfect beings.

Welcome to ISIS.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

There are very few long-term conflicts, wherein the struggle is over some nationalist question, that each side is made-up of a single homogenous political component. Almost always, over time, the spectrum of those that conduct themselves in an ethical manner gets progressively wider and wider - expanding towards unethical behaviors. In any given population sample, there are going to be psychopaths & sociopaths; with estimates that start as low as 1% of the general populations --- and up to as much as 25% when the population is concentrated deviants as in a prison population.

Agree. But I can see how the Palestinians could be considered "freedom fighters" AND "terrorists". In fact - have there ever been freedom fighters who have not engaged in terrorism?

It's only AFTER victory...that they are acknowledged as "freedom fighters" and their terrorist tactics swept under the rug.

(COMMENT)

In any given conflict, true freedom fighters, which generally conduct themselves in an ethical manner considering the environment, will make mistakes periodically. But they don't set a policy that runs counter to acceptable standards. However, psychopaths & sociopaths tend to gravitate together and draw with them the weak-minded and those susceptible to manipulation. The longer the sustained conflict, the greater density the circle of the unethical grows until it break-off to form a splinter group.

Both the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Israeli Defense and Security forces are a composite of the ethical and unethical. Which opposing group is dominated by the psychopaths & sociopaths is judged on which exhibits the greater tendency to openly condone and advocate for assaults and attacks on soft, undefended and innocent civilian persons and objects. Existence of criminal intent and specific knowledge can be inferred from elements associated with criminal actions involving a judgement to proceed or to withdraw from the action. This would include an established pattern of criminal behaviors, and acts or failures to act in a way that violates customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ChrisL]

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

Perhaps.

However, had Germany won WWII, I doubt there would be anyone on this board who could argue against the merits of genocide.

Happily, the US won the Indian Wars, and while some might regret the way they were won, few cannot justify the result.

When the Europeans came to America, they did commit genocide. Was it intentional? I don't know if it they wanted to intentionally destroy all of them or not. They certainly did though, and I don't excuse that either. However, that was long before there were any kind of "rules" of war invented by some men with a lot of power.

So you think had the Indians defeated the Europeans, they'd now be excusing the Europeans intent because it was "long before there were any kinds of 'rules' of war?"

You seem to take the concept of Rules of War seriously. Did you goggle "oxymoron?"

That was genocide - but the war the German's were fighting was "conventional" in the sense of the definition.

Terrorism and guerilla warfare are considered "unconventional" or assymetric - they don't involve states fighting states.

Perhaps.

However, had Germany won WWII, I doubt there would be anyone on this board who could argue against the merits of genocide.

Happily, the US won the Indian Wars, and while some might regret the way they were won, few cannot justify the result.

When the Europeans came to America, they did commit genocide. Was it intentional? I don't know if it they wanted to intentionally destroy all of them or not. They certainly did though, and I don't excuse that either. However, that was long before there were any kind of "rules" of war invented by some men with a lot of power.

So you think had the Indians defeated the Europeans, they'd now be excusing the Europeans intent because it was "long before there were any kinds of 'rules' of war?"

You seem to take the concept of Rules of War seriously. Did you goggle "oxymoron?"

Times were different and so was what was considered acceptable is all I'm saying.

 

[ChrisL]

Many define terrorism based on their opinions, not on reason.
That means a Palestinian killing an Israel soldier in occupied Palestine is a terrorist, but US B52s carpet bombing Cambodia was not.

If you attack unarmed civilians in order to force your opinions and ideals onto others, you're probably a terrorist.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Not arguing what is more excusable: Many believe taking ANY human life is wrong, but the definition is in the hands of the victor.

Well, it's not a good thing to have wars and take lives, but unfortunately this is not an ideal world and we are not perfect beings.

Welcome to ISIS.

Quit trolling like a child. If you have something to add to the discussion to show us that you are capable of participating, then by all means . . . . Waiting.

 

[ChrisL]

Many define terrorism based on their opinions, not on reason.
That means a Palestinian killing an Israel soldier in occupied Palestine is a terrorist, but US B52s carpet bombing Cambodia was not.

If you attack unarmed civilians in order to force your opinions and ideals onto others, you're probably a terrorist.

Lets not forget that before the British escaped from Palestine, Jews were "terrorizing" them;

• Many Jews had fought for the Allies during WWII and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area

Still, targeting political figures is different than intentionally targeting civilians who are helpless and doing some of the things that are done to those poor people over there in the ME. What they are doing is just inexcusable! They target and murder children too, pregnant women, etc. Anyone who disagrees with them basically.

Not arguing what is more excusable: Many believe taking ANY human life is wrong, but the definition is in the hands of the victor.

Well, it's not a good thing to have wars and take lives, but unfortunately this is not an ideal world and we are not perfect beings.

Welcome to ISIS.

The fact of the matter is that what happened back then is completely irrelevant. There was no United Nations, and there was nobody to say, "hey, that's wrong." Things like outright slaughter were more acceptable throughout history than they are today. The Romans slaughtered people for pure entertainment, so if you want to go back into the past like that, every single civilization and country on earth is guilty of some kind of "atrocity" or another. This is why, when discussing such things, we stick to CURRENT times.

 

[Samson]

Times were different and so was what was considered acceptable is all I'm saying.

Not only do you not know the definition of Oxymoron, you also seem to have almost no grasp on reality or history; of course times were different, but nothing has ever been considered unacceptable.

Once you find the definition of Oxymoron, look up "Naïve."

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Terrorism is usually defined by the domestic law of the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed.

Genocide is an International Crime.

I think there is overlap - but genocide and terrorism are two different things.

The best definition of genocide I've come across is this: What Is Genocide? — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Terrorism is a tactic who's aim is some sort of political or cultural change through targeting civiliabs - not necessarily genocide. Genocide can be accomplished through conventional warfare, not terrorism (ie - the Holocaust, the Bosnian conflict, the Rwandan conflict).

(COMMENT)

Article 6 Genocide comes in different flavors and defined by the elements of the offense:

Article 6 Genocide
Introduction
With respect to the last element listed for each crime:

(a) The term “in the context of” would include the initial acts in an emerging pattern;
(b) The term “manifest” is an objective qualification;
(c) Notwithstanding the normal requirement for a mental element provided for in article 30, and recognizing that knowledge of the circumstances will usually be addressed in proving genocidal intent, the appropriate requirement, if any, for a mental element regarding this circumstance will need to be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis.​

Article 6
(a) Genocide by killing
Elements

1. The perpetrator killed2 one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.​

Article 6 (b)
Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm
Elements

1. The perpetrator caused serious bodily or mental harm to one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.​

Article 6 (c)
Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
Elements

1. The perpetrator inflicted certain conditions of life upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conditions of life were calculated to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.
5. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.​

Article 6 (d)
Genocide by imposing measures intended to prevent births
Elements

1. The perpetrator imposed certain measures upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The measures imposed were intended to prevent births within that group.
5. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.​

Article 6 (e)
Genocide by forcibly transferring children
Elements

1. The perpetrator forcibly transferred one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The transfer was from that group to another group.​

The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ChrisL]

Times were different and so was what was considered acceptable is all I'm saying.

Not only do you not know the definition of Oxymoron, you also seem to have almost no grasp on reality or history; of course times were different, but nothing has ever been considered unacceptable.

Once you find the definition of Oxymoron, look up "Naïve."

You just aren't making any sense and you aren't saying anything relevant to the discussion. Bringing up the native Americans is not making a case for anything and, in fact, it totally makes MY case. So I guess thanks?

 

[ChrisL]

Times were different and so was what was considered acceptable is all I'm saying.

Not only do you not know the definition of Oxymoron, you also seem to have almost no grasp on reality or history; of course times were different, but nothing has ever been considered unacceptable.

Once you find the definition of Oxymoron, look up "Naïve."

What does this even mean? Nothing has ever been considered unacceptable? Please. What a load of poo.