Genocide list

[manu1959]

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

interesting read...lots of links and info.....

 

[Larkinn]

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

interesting read...lots of links and info.....

A bit shoddy considering the author of the website seems to be unaware even of the definition of genocide...He means murderers, not genocide.

 

[Ruby]

A bit shoddy considering the author of the website seems to be unaware even of the definition of genocide...He means murderers, not genocide.

Manu has already displayed trouble grasping the definition of genocide when he declared that everyone has committed genocide on another thread. Of course his statement was incorrect so he tried to shove colonizations and oppression into the genocide definition in some attempt to stick to his statement rather than just admit he overstated.

I did provide him the definition but he still seems to have trouble grasping it much like the person in the link he provided.

BTW, I did look through the site. Its just as shoddy the rest of the way through as well.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Manu is a bright guy. Dont mock him.

Manu has already displayed trouble grasping the definition of genocide when he declared that everyone has committed genocide on another thread. Of course his statement was incorrect so he tried to shove colonizations and oppression into the genocide definition in some attempt to stick to his statement rather than just admit he overstated.

I did provide him the definition but he still seems to have trouble grasping it much like the person in the link he provided.

BTW, I did look through the site. Its just as shoddy the rest of the way through as well.

 

[manu1959]

A bit shoddy considering the author of the website seems to be unaware even of the definition of genocide...He means murderers, not genocide.

your definition is not the definition

 

[manu1959]

Manu has already displayed trouble grasping the definition of genocide when he declared that everyone has committed genocide on another thread. Of course his statement was incorrect so he tried to shove colonizations and oppression into the genocide definition in some attempt to stick to his statement rather than just admit he overstated.

I did provide him the definition but he still seems to have trouble grasping it much like the person in the link he provided.

BTW, I did look through the site. Its just as shoddy the rest of the way through as well.

well it can't be both ways now can it......seems you have been briar patched.....and in case you didn't notice i didn't write the article.....

 

[manu1959]

Manu is a bright guy. Dont mock him.

too funny......they have no choice but to mock for they can not refute me....

 

[Larkinn]

your definition is not the definition

Yes, actually, it pretty much is really. Genocide is massacre designed to wipe out a race/culture/religion/etc. Not just mass killings. By the way...I highly doubt you actually want all of those to be classified as genocides. The US (and the international community in general) have an international obligation to act on a genocide...but not on mass killings. Which is, in part, why the definition is so specific and strict.

 

[manu1959]

Yes, actually, it pretty much is really. Genocide is massacre designed to wipe out a race/culture/religion/etc. Not just mass killings. By the way...I highly doubt you actually want all of those to be classified as genocides. The US (and the international community in general) have an international obligation to act on a genocide...but not on mass killings. Which is, in part, why the definition is so specific and strict.

Morning,

so what on the list is not a genocide by your definition....

what should have been on the list....

and why would i care who is on the list.....

 

[Larkinn]

Morning,

so what on the list is not a genocide by your definition....

what should have been on the list....

and why would i care who is on the list.....

Well I can't say I know enough about each of the atrocities to say whether every one is a genocide or not...but without doing a ton of research on each atrocity, I would say that the genocides are limited to Rwanda, Hitler, and Turkey...but again a lot of the atrocities I have insufficient knowledge to really say. But Iraq is definitely not a genocide, nor were the deaths during the Iran-Iraq war, Vietnam was not, nor was OBL's attack on the US.

 

[Larkinn]

Morning,

so what on the list is not a genocide by your definition....

what should have been on the list....

and why would i care who is on the list.....

Why you would care? *shrug* who knows. Care about whatever you wish, but I try to be as accurate as possible when speaking, and expect that of those around me as well. As I've pointed out in previous threads, language is all we have to communicate effectively, especially online, so it would behoove us to use language as precisely as possible to avoid any miscommunications.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Missing from that list of genocides are the repeated atrocities the referees committed against the Seattle Seahawks at Superbowl XL.

 

[Ruby]

well it can't be both ways now can it......seems you have been briar patched.....and in case you didn't notice i didn't write the article.....

I know you didnt write the article, you just tried to find somthing to bolster a point you made that is false. Not every nation has committed genocide.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: 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 criteria for article 1 and 2 must be met to be genocide and there are 4 groups who are protected.

The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.

A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.

An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.

A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.

A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.

Mass killings, colonization wars of conquest, civil wars, dictators mass killing dissidents are not genocide.

 

[manu1959]

I know you didnt write the article, you just tried to find somthing to bolster a point you made that is false. Not every nation has committed genocide.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

The criteria for article 1 and 2 must be met to be genocide and there are 4 groups who are protected.

Mass killings, colonization wars of conquest, civil wars, dictators mass killing dissidents are not genocide.

disagree .... every nation to become a nation had to kill off the people that opposed the formation of a nation....rationalise it however you like.....

but if your definition holds then killing off the american indian was justified.....

and the us colonizing iraq and killing off the iraqis would be justifed...

 

[manu1959]

Why you would care? *shrug* who knows. Care about whatever you wish, but I try to be as accurate as possible when speaking, and expect that of those around me as well. As I've pointed out in previous threads, language is all we have to communicate effectively, especially online, so it would behoove us to use language as precisely as possible to avoid any miscommunications.

then answer the questions i posed....

 

[Ruby]

disagree .... every nation to become a nation had to kill off the people that opposed the formation of a nation....rationalise it however you like.....

but if your definition holds then killing off the american indian was justified.....

and the us colonizing iraq and killing off the iraqis would be justifed...

You do your best to try to oversimplify things. Nordic countries became nations and fought with each other but there was no genocide.

Natives were a genocide because we targeted an entire nation for extermination so that we could REPLACE them as the owners of the nation. We didnt colonize and attempt to rule over them.

You are only illustrating that you cant comprehend the definition nor apply it.

 

[manu1959]

You do your best to try to oversimplify things. Nordic countries became nations and fought with each other but there was no genocide.

Natives were a genocide because we targeted an entire nation for extermination so that we could REPLACE them as the owners of the nation. We didnt colonize and attempt to rule over them.

You are only illustrating that you cant comprehend the definition nor apply it.

not true the norse tribes committed genociced on several island including england...go look it up.....

i am the one that called it genocide you twit...you are the one that said colonizing wasn't genocide...now you say it isn't...we didn't colonize america the europeans did....we did not even become a nation until decades after the europeans....the norse tribes included commited genociced on the american indian....

you keep claiming the high moral and intuletual ground while digging the hole you are standing in.....

 

[Ruby]

not true the norse tribes committed genociced on several island including england...go look it up.....

i am the one that called it genocide you twit...you are the one that said colonizing wasn't genocide...now you say it isn't...we didn't colonize america the europeans did....we did not even become a nation until decades after the europeans....the norse tribes included commited genociced on the american indian....

you keep claiming the high moral and intuletual ground while digging the hole you are standing in.....

They didnt commit genocide, they did kill people who resisted their thefts though.

The european settlers are our ancestors and we werent colonizing....we were wiping out the natives to take the land over and REPLACE them as the new owners. THAT is genocide, not colonization. Colonization entered the picture when the residents no longer felt part of the homeland in europe and wanted to run their own communities for their own best interests and not have european nations do it for european interests. There was violence and bloodshed in that struggle to be free from colonization but that was not genocide.

You cant grasp the definition nor the intent, thats really pretty sad in a very comical way.

 

[manu1959]

They didnt commit genocide, they did kill people who resisted their thefts though.

The european settlers are our ancestors and we werent colonizing....we were wiping out the natives to take the land over and REPLACE them as the new owners. THAT is genocide, not colonization. Colonization entered the picture when the residents no longer felt part of the homeland in europe and wanted to run their own communities for their own best interests and not have european nations do it for european interests. There was violence and bloodshed in that struggle to be free from colonization but that was not genocide.

You cant grasp the definition nor the intent, thats really pretty sad in a very comical way.

dude you just described the same event two different ways....it would seem you are the one having a problem......

 

[Ruby]

dude you just described the same event two different ways....it would seem you are the one having a problem......

No I didnt, you are proving what difficulty you have with reading comprehension which explains why you cant grasp the definition of genocide.

We came to settle new lands and exterminated the natives to do it. Genocide. Later those same settlers felt as if they were a "english" colony since they no longer felt as if they themselves were "english". The genocide was pretty much done and now they really felt an ownership of the land and didnt need so much help in the genocidal step anymore...they no longer wanted the "ownership" challenged by lands far away.

Are you HONESTLY this uninformed and dense?