Reply With Quote
Fuzzy seems unwilling to look at the UN/Geneva definitions of genocide. Comparison/measuring up to historical genocides/ethnic cleansing isn't required, that's pure polemics.
Oh I get that you cannot stop. Thanks for the demonstration btw.
Fuzzy seems unwilling to look at the UN/Geneva definitions of genocide. Comparison/measuring up to historical genocides/ethnic cleansing isn't required, that's pure polemics.
post away, Wine, I am not going to make your argument for you.
I cannot stop stopping you from changing the subject?
Yeah, it's going to be all stonewalling and ad hominems from him now.
In the end it's all he has.
Still seems mad too.
Still amused by your tantrums.
I posted this definition upstream and you ignored it.
"In whole or in part."
Note that "any," not all, of the criteria are sufficient to satisfy the definition.
https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreven...20Genocide.pdfArticle 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.
Seems to me the only condition not yet satisfied is the forceable transfer of children.
ethnic cleansing isn't a defined crime, but elements of it almost surely are
https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreven...leansing.shtmlAs ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as " rendering an area ethnically geneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area."
In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.
The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.
The Commission of Experts added that these practices can cons ute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
nope, sorry, Wine, intent to . .. . still isn't there. than you for showing that I was correct to look at intent though.
Perhaps another opinion piece and pretend it is IDF policy.
1% of Gaza has been killed.
2-3% has been injured and maimed.
80% have been forcibly driven from their homes.
~60% of all structures have been damaged/destroyed, with no end yet in sight.
Bombing ambulances, hospitals, churches, warehouses, bakeries, international aid facilities and urban infrastructure like water impose conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Gaza, in part. Collective punishment for a political end, we have a common word for this in the West.
It's not hard to figure out why you can't see how the meaning of the definition applies to the case -- you're super-biased.
20k have been killed and the are still 2.5m left. There were 750k in 1999. I am not seeing the genocide.
what percentage of Gaza would have to be killed to satisfy your completely idiosyncratic definition of genocide?
It's not about percentages.
It's about systemic intent. You even gave the definition. Did it say anything about percentages? No, it did not.
Hope you didn't get whiplash, until just now you were really hung up on numbers and percentages.
You don't see genocidal intent, I see words and actions wholly consistent with that intent.
At a certain level of collective punishment of noncombatants, professed intent becomes a fig leaf. I think we're already there. Legalistic parsing of legitimate war targets at this scale of human suffering mocks both humanitarian pretenses and righteous legalism.
No, I was hung up on how you were trying to make 20k into 20M while screaming genocide.Hope you didn't get whiplash, until just now you were really hung up on numbers and percentages.
You don't see genocidal intent, I see words and actions wholly consistent with that intent.
At a certain level of collective punishment of noncombatants, professed intent becomes a fig leaf. I think we're already there. Legalistic parsing of legitimate war targets at this scale of human suffering mocks both humanitarian pretenses and righteous legalism.
Sounds like a war to me. Historically, the winner gets to decide what is and isn't genocide. That's why we got to hang the Nazis after we bombed the out of their cities.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 12-27-2023 at 05:02 PM.
UK firebombing were straight out revenge but the Allies didn't create units, facilities, and infrastructure for killing multiple races and ethnicities. Weell, the Soviets did but their systemic genocides don't jive either.
Fortunately we had "smart" bombs that only killed uniformed soldiers
Makes one wonder why they still use the 1 ton dumb ones today in a place like Gaza.
Guess it's because hamas doesn't wear uniforms.
So they could just bomb anyone anywhere in Gaza with dumb 2000 pounders and be completely justified because uniforms?
Pretty good odds they will hit one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions