You're viewing a single thread.
Looks like more of a semantics argument to me.
That's why we refer to international organisations, or the United Nations
This link doesn’t support the claim that the UN called these events a genocide. It lists all sorts of human rights violations on a massive scale, but it doesn’t use the word genocide.
I suppose the crux of the matter is that it was the USA, not the UN, and then some of its close allies who named the events a “genocide”.
After this the frontiers harden, nobody talks any more about the actual events, but about the terminology.
The UN can’t classify acts as genocides as per its rules. However, it can supply resources for independent international organisations to come to their own conclusions, in which case, most classify it as a genocide.
UN is not calling it a genocide though? The entire report your link refers to does not mention genocide. It does make a clear point of massive discrimination etc though ä.
The UN can't classify acts as genocides as per its rules. However, it can supply resources for independent international organisations to come to their own conclusions, in which case, most classify it as a genocide.
That is what the genocide denier wants you to think. It obviously isn't a semantics argument though.
I still wouldn't base my entire opinion on someone over one discussion regarding whether something is or isn't a genocide. I hope he doesn't like diet coke or chew with his mouth open.