That depends on the number there are, and intent. 200,000 was nowhere near the whole population, and the intent wasn't to wipe out the Japanese. Therefore, it wasn't genocide. Your logic is poor: the reason all was killed had nothing to do with their ethnicity or nationality, but rather the fact that they were part of a group who were at war with another group.
Who's logic is poor?Bubbalo wrote:
That depends on the number there are, and intent. 200,000 was nowhere near the whole population, and the intent wasn't to wipe out the Japanese. Therefore, it wasn't genocide. Your logic is poor: the reason all was killed had nothing to do with their ethnicity or nationality, but rather the fact that they were part of a group who were at war with another group.
There were several 'low key' attempts at genocide during the 20th century.
With 'low key', I mean that mass murder was not the method used, but the aim was, nevertheless, to eradicate an ethnic group.
One example would be the 'Lost Generation' of Australian indigenous people.
With 'low key', I mean that mass murder was not the method used, but the aim was, nevertheless, to eradicate an ethnic group.
One example would be the 'Lost Generation' of Australian indigenous people.
andWikipedia wrote:
The Stolen Generation is a term used to describe the half-caste Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and (officially) 1969.
Wikipedia wrote:
The stated aims were:
- to culturally assimilate mixed-descent Aborigines into contemporary Australian society so as to aid in the biological assimilation of the native race.
"Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white." Dr Cecil Cook - Aboriginal Protector, Northern Territory.
Well, according to "my" definition it was a Genocide.Bubbalo wrote:
And this matters how? People have a nasty habit for forgetting definitions when it doesn't match with what they want to say.sergeriver wrote:
Well, according to all the sources I searched it's a Genocide,Yes it is: you used it, you adopted it as your own.sergeriver wrote:
and it's not my definition.Yes, but he wasn't try to wipe out a national or ethnic group. He was trying to force dissidents to give up resistance.sergeriver wrote:
The guy was a wacko trying to starve a whole group of people because they were against him.
"My Definition of Genocide":
The term 'Genocide' was coined by a jurist named Raphael Lemkin in 1944 by combining the Greek word 'genos' (race) with the Latin word 'cide' (killing). Genocide as defined by the United Nations in 1948 means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including:
-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.
Besides, how can you say Stalin didn't mean to kill those people?
Great OP serge! +1
Haven't got round to reading all the links yet, basically I just took a look at this one... So... I hate to bitch about this but here goes...
The same thing goes for the Serbs. It is more than clear that we all know about how they slaughtered these Innocent Albanian villages. But does anybody know the flip side of that coin?
If what is written in the link above should qualify as genocide, then the genocide commited by the Albanians' UCK against the Serbs should also be mentioned right underneath.
Haven't got round to reading all the links yet, basically I just took a look at this one... So... I hate to bitch about this but here goes...
The page contains some curiously consistent mistakes... Point in case: Macedonia: This country does not exist, at least by that name. I hate to be the one to point this out all the time, (makes me sound like some fucking patriotic assholes around here) but the official name of that country is FYROM. I don't see why the same "mistake" should keep popping up, unless some people are pressing the matter in the context of some larger agenda.sergeriver wrote:
Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995: 200.000 Deaths
In the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, conflict between the three main ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, resulted in genocide committed by the Serbs against the Muslims in Bosnia.
The same thing goes for the Serbs. It is more than clear that we all know about how they slaughtered these Innocent Albanian villages. But does anybody know the flip side of that coin?
If what is written in the link above should qualify as genocide, then the genocide commited by the Albanians' UCK against the Serbs should also be mentioned right underneath.
ƒ³
So intent is what defines genocide? Bubba, you are making your own definition, and that makes your logic useless to any argument except with yourself.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Who's logic is poor?Bubbalo wrote:
That depends on the number there are, and intent. 200,000 was nowhere near the whole population, and the intent wasn't to wipe out the Japanese. Therefore, it wasn't genocide. Your logic is poor: the reason all was killed had nothing to do with their ethnicity or nationality, but rather the fact that they were part of a group who were at war with another group.
And that goes against your own post a little back, when you were talking to sergeriver:
Bubbalo wrote:
Yes it is: you used it, you adopted it as your own.sergeriver wrote:
and it's not my definition.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
I think it's irrelevant if they call it Macedonia or FYROM. They use the term Macedonia once, not big deal, and it doesn't affect the whole matter. Are you questioning that what Milosevic did is a Genocide? I hope you aren't. Regarding the Albanians against the Serbs show me a proof that it qualifies as Genocide and I'll add it.oug wrote:
Great OP serge! +1
Haven't got round to reading all the links yet, basically I just took a look at this one... So... I hate to bitch about this but here goes...The page contains some curiously consistent mistakes... Point in case: Macedonia: This country does not exist, at least by that name. I hate to be the one to point this out all the time, (makes me sound like some fucking patriotic assholes around here) but the official name of that country is FYROM. I don't see why the same "mistake" should keep popping up, unless some people are pressing the matter in the context of some larger agenda.sergeriver wrote:
Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1995: 200.000 Deaths
In the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, conflict between the three main ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims, resulted in genocide committed by the Serbs against the Muslims in Bosnia.
The same thing goes for the Serbs. It is more than clear that we all know about how they slaughtered these Innocent Albanian villages. But does anybody know the flip side of that coin?
If what is written in the link above should qualify as genocide, then the genocide commited by the Albanians' UCK against the Serbs should also be mentioned right underneath.
Edit: the weird karma is mine, I just was talking by telephone and hit the wrong key.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-23 03:51:56)
History is written by those who win the wars. Its true for the war in Bosnia, and for WWII. You won't ever see the words genocide associated with the wiping out of entire cities by an atom bomb. Just as is the case with the killings of serbs by Croatians or Albanians.oug wrote:
If what is written in the link above should qualify as genocide, then the genocide commited by the Albanians' UCK against the Serbs should also be mentioned right underneath.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Well, yes it is irrelevant, but it sort of goes to show that what is written is not so well thought out.sergeriver wrote:
I think it's irrelevant if they call it Macedonia or FYROM. They use the term Macedonia once, not big deal, and it doesn't affect the whole matter. Are you questioning that what Milosevic did is a Genocide? I hope you aren't. Regarding the Albanians against the Serbs show me a proof that it qualifies as Genocide and I'll add it.
Never questioned Milosevic's acts. He's a son of a bitch.
As far as proof goes, well I would, if there was anything within reach (on the internets) that would qualify as such... sadly though... EVieira is correct:
EVieira wrote:
History is written by those who win the wars. Its true for the war in Bosnia, and for WWII. You won't ever see the words genocide associated with the wiping out of entire cities by an atom bomb. Just as is the case with the killings of serbs by Croatians or Albanians.
ƒ³
But you must think of the context of those killings. Someone before said the nukes in Japan, what was awful, but it wasn't Genocide.oug wrote:
Well, yes it is irrelevant, but it sort of goes to show that what is written is not so well thought out.sergeriver wrote:
I think it's irrelevant if they call it Macedonia or FYROM. They use the term Macedonia once, not big deal, and it doesn't affect the whole matter. Are you questioning that what Milosevic did is a Genocide? I hope you aren't. Regarding the Albanians against the Serbs show me a proof that it qualifies as Genocide and I'll add it.
Never questioned Milosevic's acts. He's a son of a bitch.
As far as proof goes, well I would, if there was anything within reach (on the internets) that would qualify as such... sadly though... EVieira is correct:EVieira wrote:
History is written by those who win the wars. Its true for the war in Bosnia, and for WWII. You won't ever see the words genocide associated with the wiping out of entire cities by an atom bomb. Just as is the case with the killings of serbs by Croatians or Albanians.
never happened, ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. HE will enlighten you.Kmarion wrote:
Nazi Holocaust 1938-1945: 6.000.000 Deathsncc6206 wrote:
How about the Nazis attempted extermination of the Jews? Does that qualify?
It began with a simple boycott of Jewish shops and ended in the gas chambers at Auschwitz as Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers attempted to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe.
It's in the list.lowing wrote:
never happened, ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. HE will enlighten you.Kmarion wrote:
Nazi Holocaust 1938-1945: 6.000.000 Deathsncc6206 wrote:
How about the Nazis attempted extermination of the Jews? Does that qualify?
It began with a simple boycott of Jewish shops and ended in the gas chambers at Auschwitz as Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers attempted to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe.
Honestly curious: has he ever said anything like that? Or are you just assuming?lowing wrote:
never happened, ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. HE will enlighten you.
ƒ³
Would it be called genocide if Japan had won the war? If Serbia had managed to conquer all of Iugoslavia, would Milosevic be seen as a murderer or a war hero?sergeriver wrote:
But you must think of the context of those killings. Someone before said the nukes in Japan, what was awful, but it wasn't Genocide.EVieira wrote:
History is written by those who win the wars. Its true for the war in Bosnia, and for WWII. You won't ever see the words genocide associated with the wiping out of entire cities by an atom bomb. Just as is the case with the killings of serbs by Croatians or Albanians.
The definition of genocide is too lax, your point of view (generally speaking, as in all of our views) , which is usually biased by your nationality in these cases, can determine what you consider a genocide and what others consider "something awful".
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad .......read alll about him.oug wrote:
Honestly curious: has he ever said anything like that? Or are you just assuming?lowing wrote:
never happened, ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. HE will enlighten you.
No, it's all about real facts.EVieira wrote:
Would it be called genocide if Japan had won the war? If Serbia had managed to conquer all of Iugoslavia, would Milosevic be seen as a murderer or a war hero?sergeriver wrote:
But you must think of the context of those killings. Someone before said the nukes in Japan, what was awful, but it wasn't Genocide.EVieira wrote:
History is written by those who win the wars. Its true for the war in Bosnia, and for WWII. You won't ever see the words genocide associated with the wiping out of entire cities by an atom bomb. Just as is the case with the killings of serbs by Croatians or Albanians.
The definition of genocide is too lax, your point of view (generally speaking, as in all of our views) , which is usually biased by your nationality in these cases, can determine what you consider a genocide and what others consider "something awful".
When US dropped their nukes in Japan they never meant to wipe Japanese people from the World. Read the definition of Genocide according to the UN, and then tell me if that was Genocide. It certainly was awful, but not a Genocide.
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-23 04:28:45)
yup.sergeriver wrote:
No, it's all about real facts.EVieira wrote:
Would it be called genocide if Japan had won the war? If Serbia had managed to conquer all of Iugoslavia, would Milosevic be seen as a murderer or a war hero?sergeriver wrote:
But you must think of the context of those killings. Someone before said the nukes in Japan, what was awful, but it wasn't Genocide.
The definition of genocide is too lax, your point of view (generally speaking, as in all of our views) , which is usually biased by your nationality in these cases, can determine what you consider a genocide and what others consider "something awful".
When US dropped their nukes in Japan they never meant to wipe Japanese people from the World. Read the definition of Genocide according to the UN, and then tell me if that was Genocide. It certainly was awful, but not a Genocide.
For the first time, I agree with sergeriver.sergeriver wrote:
No, it's all about real facts.EVieira wrote:
Would it be called genocide if Japan had won the war? If Serbia had managed to conquer all of Iugoslavia, would Milosevic be seen as a murderer or a war hero?sergeriver wrote:
But you must think of the context of those killings. Someone before said the nukes in Japan, what was awful, but it wasn't Genocide.
The definition of genocide is too lax, your point of view (generally speaking, as in all of our views) , which is usually biased by your nationality in these cases, can determine what you consider a genocide and what others consider "something awful".
When US dropped their nukes in Japan they never meant to wipe Japanese people from the World. Read the definition of Genocide according to the UN, and then tell me if that was Genocide. It certainly was awful, but not a Genocide.
LOL it is the second or third time for me..........................WALLLLLLLLLK INTOOOOOOOOOO THE LIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTT SERGERIVERRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
For the first time, I agree with sergeriver.sergeriver wrote:
No, it's all about real facts.EVieira wrote:
Would it be called genocide if Japan had won the war? If Serbia had managed to conquer all of Iugoslavia, would Milosevic be seen as a murderer or a war hero?
The definition of genocide is too lax, your point of view (generally speaking, as in all of our views) , which is usually biased by your nationality in these cases, can determine what you consider a genocide and what others consider "something awful".
When US dropped their nukes in Japan they never meant to wipe Japanese people from the World. Read the definition of Genocide according to the UN, and then tell me if that was Genocide. It certainly was awful, but not a Genocide.
Ah yes, the Stolen Generation. Or as Andrew Bolt likes to say "What stolen generation?"apollo_fi wrote:
There were several 'low key' attempts at genocide during the 20th century.
With 'low key', I mean that mass murder was not the method used, but the aim was, nevertheless, to eradicate an ethnic group.
One example would be the 'Lost Generation' of Australian indigenous people.andWikipedia wrote:
The Stolen Generation is a term used to describe the half-caste Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and (officially) 1969.Wikipedia wrote:
The stated aims were:
- to culturally assimilate mixed-descent Aborigines into contemporary Australian society so as to aid in the biological assimilation of the native race.
"Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white." Dr Cecil Cook - Aboriginal Protector, Northern Territory.
The Stolen Generation is proof of the ignorance of the white man and the church. And it was genocide to a T, by trying to delibrately mix the Aborigines with the Europeans against the aborigines the Whites were trying to totally wipe out any part of the aborigine history.
I wonder when Johnny's gonna apologise......
I'd prefer you to cross the line to our side, you know the Dark Side of the Force is not for me Darth Vader.lowing wrote:
LOL it is the second or third time for me..........................WALLLLLLLLLK INTOOOOOOOOOO THE LIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTT SERGERIVERRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
For the first time, I agree with sergeriver.sergeriver wrote:
No, it's all about real facts.
When US dropped their nukes in Japan they never meant to wipe Japanese people from the World. Read the definition of Genocide according to the UN, and then tell me if that was Genocide. It certainly was awful, but not a Genocide.
lol, nehhhh, not for me, all that peace and love makes me sick.sergeriver wrote:
I'd prefer you to cross the line to our side, you know the Dark Side of the Force is not for me Darth Vader.lowing wrote:
LOL it is the second or third time for me..........................WALLLLLLLLLK INTOOOOOOOOOO THE LIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTT SERGERIVERRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
For the first time, I agree with sergeriver.
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-23 05:52:42)
Real facts? Killing of 200,000 people, half of those vaporised instantly and the other condemened to blindness, third degree burns and a suffering death by either radiation posioning or kidney failure is not about real facts?sergeriver wrote:
No, it's all about real facts.
When US dropped their nukes in Japan they never meant to wipe Japanese people from the World. Read the definition of Genocide according to the UN, and then tell me if that was Genocide. It certainly was awful, but not a Genocide.
You may or may not call it genocide, but it was damn more than "awful".
And if you want to use that definition of genocide, your opening post is wrong. Mao's Great Leap, the Nanking Rape and Stalin's Forced Fame were not genocides, since they "are about facts" and never intended to wipe a race from the earth. They are just "awful".
Last edited by EVieira (2006-11-23 07:14:14)
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
The Great Leap Forward was not a Genocide, that's why it says (Was this a Genocide?), it was a big mistake committed by Mao. Since some people told it should be there, I put it but I deny that was a Genocide. I don't see how the other two aren't Genocides. And, again I think what happened with the nukes in Japan is awful, but it isn't a Genocide. Read my posts.EVieira wrote:
Real facts? Killing of 200,000 people, half of those vaporised instantly and the other condemened to blindness, third degree burns and a suffering death by either radiation posioning or kidney failure is not about real facts?sergeriver wrote:
No, it's all about real facts.
When US dropped their nukes in Japan they never meant to wipe Japanese people from the World. Read the definition of Genocide according to the UN, and then tell me if that was Genocide. It certainly was awful, but not a Genocide.
You may or may not call it genocide, but it was damn more than "awful".
And if you want to use that definition of genocide, your opening post is wrong. Mao's Great Leap, the Nanking Rape and Stalin's Forced Fame were not genocides, since they "are about facts" and never intended to wipe a race from the earth. They are just "awful".
EVieiracyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Who's logic is poor?
Again, not genocide. Just the same as a trade embargo isn't a war.apollo_fi wrote:
about the stolen generation
Notice the italicised text. He wasn't doing that: he was trying firstly to subjugate, rather than destroy, and secondly a social group who were rebellious, who happened to be of the same nationality.sergeriver wrote:
Well, according to "my" definition it was a Genocide.
"My Definition of Genocide":
The term 'Genocide' was coined by a jurist named Raphael Lemkin in 1944 by combining the Greek word 'genos' (race) with the Latin word 'cide' (killing). Genocide as defined by the United Nations in 1948 means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including:
-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.
Because he was happier with fewer deaths: the fewer died, the more were left to do his dirty work.sergeriver wrote:
Besides, how can you say Stalin didn't mean to kill those people?
No, I'm working on the UN definition which states that it is an action intended to destroy a nationality (at least, that is what's in play here). The US were not trying to destroy the Japanese: they were (ostensibly) trying to force a complete surrender.EVieira wrote:
So intent is what defines genocide? Bubba, you are making your own definition, and that makes your logic useless to any argument except with yourself.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Who's logic is poor?Bubbalo wrote:
That depends on the number there are, and intent. 200,000 was nowhere near the whole population, and the intent wasn't to wipe out the Japanese. Therefore, it wasn't genocide. Your logic is poor: the reason all was killed had nothing to do with their ethnicity or nationality, but rather the fact that they were part of a group who were at war with another group.
Uh..........what? That has nothing to do with our discussion.EVieira wrote:
And that goes against your own post a little back, when you were talking to sergeriver:Bubbalo wrote:
Yes it is: you used it, you adopted it as your own.sergeriver wrote:
and it's not my definition.
Strangely enough, I agree with our PM on this: he has apologised, he just refuses to take personal responsibility for actions taken before he was born. Having said that, I disagree with the rest of his policy toward them, so.................TeamZephyr wrote:
I wonder when Johnny's gonna apologise......
This statement doesn't make sense.EVieira wrote:
Mao's Great Leap, the Nanking Rape and Stalin's Forced Fame were not genocides, since they "are about facts"................
Incorrect. The Japanese did want to wipe out the Chinese, if not in the short term certainly in the long term. The other two are currently being discussed...............EVieira wrote:
.....................and never intended to wipe a race from the earth.
I'm off for 10 days, leaving in about 8 hours, so I prob. won't be able to finish this discussion. Sorry!