You're viewing a single thread.
There are 2 genocides actively occurring (or at least in the forefront).
Western media does not shy away from calling one a genocide (as they should), but refuses to call the other one a genocide.
At least 5. Arguably the Israel-Gaza situation, Russia- Ukraine, Sudan(also with Russian involvement), China's treatment of the Uyghurs, and Myanmar's treatment of the Rohingya.
Obviously, those screeching loudest about genocide X, are inevitably entirely quiet about genocide Y, while accusing country Z of hypocrisy. I haven't named any sides, but if anyone reads this comment and thinks I'm talking about them, perhaps it's time for some introspection.
Not that whataboutism is particularly relevant for those suffering. But hey, why would anyone let human suffering and nuance get in the way of some political point scoring, real politik or a nice online shouting match.
Meanwhile we walk ever closer towards the precipice of the climate apocalypse. If it's isn't already too late.
Tibet is still ongoing, it's just not done by sending them in camps but by sending Chinese to dilute the Tibetan population.
Following this logic China is guilty in quite a few places
Manchuria is already gone so there’s no point in including that
Actual argument
Hong Kong isn’t genocide, they’re voting for it
As they attempt to remove Cantonese from spoken tongue
Nothing active yet but they got in hot water when they hosted the olympics for claiming Korean culture as their own
And when they claimed Ghengis Khan was Chinese because they currently own Southern Mongolia
That's on their own territory and I hope you're not talking about some conspiracy bullshit about replacing whites on the west coast of the US/Canada or whatever
Don't forget Modi and the muslims in India!!
If only more people were like me - lie on the sofa with laptop on belly eating ice ream.
No more genocide. Much more shitposting.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Only if you kill an entire race of people.
Sorry, I don't make the rules.
I wish to unsubscribe now. I am not a big fan of the entire committing genocide of an entire race of people.
And that's not even the first time they did that.
Up to 2,000,000 people were killed during the Partition of India, the majority being Muslim.
Genuine question, wasn't the partition a ton of civilian Muslim and Hindu deaths? That's how it had always been presented to me, but I'm realizing my parents may have been biased.
It's always a first time, every time!
And also the ethnic cleansing of Armenians by Azeirbayan, which may or may not have a round 2 in the actual country of Armenia.
We all say “never again” but didn’t do shit for Tigray. There was no big sticky issue like China and the Uyghurs that would stop an intervention - as long as it’s safely not in the news
We just need to get this world war over with so we can start rebuilding... All this waiting around is exhausting.
Amos Burton calling for the churn? Didn't have that on today's bingo card.
Let the nukes fly! Mutants will reign supreme!
ARMENIAN OBLAST IS FUCKING GONE
Absolutely. I went through a couple of revisions before settling on 2 based on being current and in the forefront.
I would argue the Israeli/Palestine one.
Hamas wants to genocide Israel (literally in their founding document) but failing miserably. Absolutely guilty of a war crime or two.
Israel is very likely guilty of a number of war crimes due to proportionality, failure to minimize civilian casualties, and reasonable cause for infrastructure damage and blockades. The fact they have only killed off something like 3% of the population with this much damage and overwhelming force means they aren't committing genocide, or they are doing a pretty poor job of it. Individuals and small groups are likely killing off civilians and should be held to account (public hanging is a good way to do it) but question the broader Israeli goal.
Hamas absolutely guilty of war crime (clear cut), could add genocide if they were winning, Israel unsure as much less clear cut. Could they be - absolutely.
So your argument against the fact of Israel committing genocide is they aren't doing it fast enough? Wow.
Kind of?
Historically at least it’s a pretty normal amount of civilian casualties and their stated goal of Hamas vs Palestine helps a lot.
But everything outside the conflict should be enough, it wasn’t exactly paradise to be a Palestinian living in Israel pre-conflict
I think the thing that many aren't following is that there are other war crimes than genocide, and one doesn't mean the other.
ICJ ruled that the claims of genocide are credible, so I'm going to keep calling it genocide.
Correct - that's the South African led one isn't it? The 60 odd page full of legal jargon one i read a few days ago? Posted the same time as the Middle East now article that was edited?
Because the conclusions they came to, in section 63 off the top of my head, is that there are credible claims, and the best way forward is to call for a cease fire so claims can be investigated. It did not say Israel is committing genocide - it said there are events and actions that need to be investigated on both sides.
It discusses the Israel blockade of aid, and Israel response as to why it was done. That attacks were carried out on civilian infrastructure that Hamas was using... and the blatant attack on civilians that sparked off this whole new round of suffering.
One war crime does not justify the other, make no mistake I am not claiming that. But it seems awfully continent how many people are taking one line of a very detailed and balanced report and ignoring the entirety of the context of it.
What do you mean by pre-conflict? collective punishment has been Israeli policy since its founding.
Before the current situation ie. October 7th Israel has been quite hostile to Palestinians
Well let's apply this argument to every other part of life - because yes, if you are killing off a population when you have an overwhelming force yes it will be quick.
Is 3% of a population being Mexican an invasion, or is it people living their life?
Is a 100pt to 103pt basketball game a clear example of the best team, or a small skill difference?
Is 3% of crime being committed by a black person indicative of a crime driven cultural issue, or a few people?
A 3% death rate in a modern conflict in a high density urban environment is not a genocide - civilians die in war. Have many been killed needlessly- absolutely. Are there questions on how Israel has been operating - absolutely. Are there individuals in the IDF that have deliberately killed civilians in cold blood - about as close to 100% as you can get. Is it a genocide - no.
That's a lot of words to say you're racist and pro-genocide, but you go off, I guess.
Thats alot of loaded words thrown out without any backing, evidence or legal bias.
Or was it too much reading so you just threw out the first insult you could?
Icj ruled it a genocide so that's what I'm calling it. You're doing a lot of work to justify genocide. Do you find that rewarding?
They haven't ruled it's genocide yet. That'll take years. They've ruled there is sufficient evidence to investigate if what has happened is genocide. Note all the caveats and qualifiers:
The court ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza. "At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention," the judges said. The ruling required Israel to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to preserve evidence related to any allegations of genocide there.
Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave, it said.
However, the court did not demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, something that Israel says would allow Hamas militants to regroup and to launch new attacks on the country. The court also said it was "gravely concerned" about the fate of hostages held in Gaza and called on Hamas and other armed groups to immediately release them without conditions.For context: over 10 million people died in the Congo Free State. It is generally agreed that it wasn't a genocide, because it wasn't intentional. It is possible that the ICJ will ultimately decide what happened in Gaza is not genocide.
Thank you for putting this much more eloquent that I have managed over the last week or so.
I've argued with soo many people over the ICJ report - they pick the two words "genocide" and "Israel" without reading the full content behind it and the conclusions it drew. Which is a shame because its a beautifully written, factual and balanced report.
Holocaust denial? Four years isn’t fast enough to be a genocide.
Nope - we have evidence of a systematic approach to killing off multiple cultures. Plans, objectives, methods and an entire system of extermination in place.
Your effectively comparing the Nazi holocaust to their invasion of France that also killed civilians.
Is Israel’s force in Palestine proportionate and justified, in your opinion?
TLDR: questions need to be asked on proportionality, but the attack as a whole is justified.
Proportionality is not equal strength, or even number of people killed. Its engaging in a way that minimizes civilian casualties and preserves civilian infrastructure while eliminating a threat.
The issue is that Hamas is using civilian structures to fight its war - logistics, armed, housing - and seizing civilian aid convoys for their own use. Hamas is deliberately placing civilians in harms way, removing protection from civilian structures, and denying aid. It is not a war crime to put a bomb through the roof of a hospital that an opposition armed forces is using, but it does kill civilians.
Is their response proportional. There are questions that need to be asked and views debated. Blocking aid convoys for civilians is not proportional, but what if you are observing your opposing force steal them from their own civilians and they aren't getting it anyway? What intel was used to decide on attacks on hospitals, temples, graveyards,was it sufficient to justify the attack, and how were civilian casualties minimized?
Was the attack justified? Yes. Hundreds killed, hostages taken. Israel has a right to defend itself from a designated terrorist organization.
None of this however justifies individual actions where civilians are killed in cold blood. Hang the lot of them.
You asked a question, they answered it seriously. You may disagree with that answer, but responding with a meme makes it clear you're not a serious person.
It's especially jarring because we're talking about literal war crimes, the holocaust and possible genocide in Gaza. You don't seem to grasp the suffering that entails, and seem to think it's all a bit of a joke. Just another topic to have a fun little internet argument over.
Like you're some 13 year old kid posting an emoji response to a decapitation video on 4chan.
It's not a great look to be honest.
Hamas can't be guilty of war crimes because they are not a country or international government organization. They can't legally wage war. War crimes can only be committed by a country that can legally wage war.
Hamas is a local government / criminal organization. They can't commit war crimes any more than the Mafia can. They just commit regular crimes and hate crimes (regular crimes motivated by racial hatred), which they are obviously doing.
Israel is probably guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide. Forcing millions of people to move is genocide. They are not waging a war on any country, so legally this is just a large police action.
Who do you blame for mafia or cartels running free in a country? The perpetrators and the government. The Israeli government has the obligation to protect people living in Israel and what it claims as its territory in Gaza. They haven't done that for Israelis, Gazans, or residents of the West Bank.
This is where a few things start to blur. Hamas is both the government of Palestine and a designated terrorist organization by everyone but the UN security council (impotent veto pricks).
War crimes can only be committed in state-state conflict - Palestine v Israel, state - state. But at the same time terrorists cannot as it is not war - its conflict (actually the definition). So can Palestine be done for war crimes but its government and militants not? Terrorists don't get protection in protected places like hospitals and temples and therefore remove their protected status, but they can't be done for endangering civilians as they aren't a state that has to follow the rules of war.
Just say you're a Zionist.
Just say you don't actually have an argument and resort to lesser insults than my 6 year old would use at school.
I like you. Succinct.
God damn it, why are there people that think that genocide is competition in effectiveness on every damn side?
Primary genocide requirement is intent. And out of five definitions, only one involves outright killing.
Read the convention before arguing about genocide. (1) (2)
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
Can you not? The meme is about the Uyghurs.
I could, but that's not the part I'm disagreeing with
There are a lot more than two, tbh.
Yes, hence the caveat of being in the forefront.
Western media does not shy away from calling one a genocide (as they should), but refuses to call the other one a genocide.
"Refuses" is a strong word. Genocide as an accusation against Israel has been prominent in news headlines as of late.
Myanmar
It's all about worthy and unworthy victims again. Worthy victims, the Uyghur because China bad and unworthy victims, the Palestinians because Israel good. One is seen as a threat, the other one as an ally so they get different media treatment. But in the end, people are getting exterminated systematically.
Western media does not shy away from calling one a genocide (as they should), but refuses to call the other one a genocide.
"Refuses" is a strong word. Genocide as an accusation against Israel has been prominent in news headlines as of late.
Don't forget about the US. We've been genociding Hispanic migrants for a while now.
Why the heck are you getting downvoted? You're absolutely right, it didn't stop when we found out about it or when biden became president
I guess people don't know that the UNs definition of genocide includes more than just killing a bunch of people.
It looks like the closest thing the US is genociding is temporarily separating children from parents to ensure they're actually parents and not traffickers and to confirm their history.
Here's more for those wondering. It doesn't meet genocide definitions. It received major lashback when they did. A federal judge halted it.
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/08/1218336878/immigration-family-separation-judge-settlement-border
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2dQ4-VNaG3s&pp=ygURY2hhbm5lbCA1IG1pZ3JhbnQ%3D
It does meet the UNs definition of genocide.
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:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
They're guilty of number 4 as well, there's been multiple reports of immigrant women being sterilized against their will
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/22/ice-gynecologist-hysterectomies-georgia
They're not transferring kids to indoctrinate them though. It's bullshit they're doing it but it's not genocide.
The definition says nothing about indoctrination.
That's the only way to remove their culture though... unless you kill them. Separation is not genocide, and is why no legit sources have called the USA out on it
What's changed between when genocide was uncovered and now? What makes biden's policy less genocidal than trump's? Or have you always been a genocide denier, even when the concentration camps and their conditions first saw a bunch of coverage?
EndlessApollo
What's changed between when genocide was uncovered and now? What makes biden's policy less genocidal than trump's? Or have you always been a genocide denier, even when the concentration camps and their conditions first saw a bunch of coverage?
I just root my understanding in reality and verifiable sauce. Like I did while nobody else followed suit.
Yuck. Have fun voting for trump ig if you hate hispanic immigrants that much