The Germans were dumb, they kept meticulous records. The others are smart - "We don't do body counts" I believe Stalin killed directly or indirectly over 20 million people. But, no one cares. PS. Soooooo glad to see you. Missed you lots. :bawl:
It does not have to be a direct genetic difference. They were Armenian and were consistently slaughtered because of their ethnicity. That is genocide Geoff. As for Rwanda.. If I say so?:bugeye: You are parroting the West's words when it was happening. It is generally accepted as having been a genocide. But hey, as you said before, it wasn't really in the West, so it doesn't matter as much, does it? Is that what you think he is doing? Defending Hitler? Dear me! What you are failing to realise is that many in today's world appear to hold the Jewish holocaust as the benchmark. No one is disputing that what Hitler did to the Jews was a genocide. But to say that what happened in Rwanda is different and comparing the two and then going on to say that Rwanda is not a genocide because it does not meet the exacting standards of the Jewish holocaust proves that you have failed to grasp what is quite obvious. The 'never again' statements will continue to occur so long as people continue to hold what happened to the Jews as a benchmark. It is not the benchmark.
Redarmy lives? I thought you suffered a genocide. Rwanda took place over a very short period of time. And, unlike the Holocaust, was committed by normal, ever day citizens. The Final Solution, for the most part, was performed in seclusion. In a way in which the people could maintain plausible denial. In which the vast majority of people did not get their hands dirty and later could gasp in horror at what took place in their back yards. Rwanda was a bloodbath in which people were hunted like dogs through the streets and killed en masse by neighborhood folk. And we, who all say "never again", did nothing.
Red! You sexy beast! Welcome back.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Don't leave again... This place is too dull without you.:bawl: Sorry.. off topic. Not really, no. That is what was so surprising with Rwanda. Long before the genocide took place, there had been reports in schools where teachers had started to classify each student by ethnicity. The 'us and them' classification had started long before. And while the genocide took place, local radio was awash with the need to cleanse Rwanda from the vermin, and cleanse they did. Then the secondary stage of the genocide took place, right under the nose of the newly arrived peacekeepers, as the returning Tutsi went on their own rampage for revenge, sometimes even in the camps manned by the international peacekeepers who had finally arrived. The genocide continued long after the world decided to finally react and it is estimated the deaths ranged into the millions.
Yes, I said all this. Rwanda was just a bunch of street thugs running wild, lashing out blindly left, right and centre - the kind of thing you see every time Cardiff play Millwall in the FA Cup. Most of them probably didn't even know which side they were on. Someone really needed to take charge there and map out a proper blueprint with a clearly-defined beginning, middle and end. The lack of organisation, the lack of discipline was, quite frankly, appalling. In stark contrast, German cars are probably the most reliable in the world - and even the most basic Miele washing machine will set you back about $1500. Basically, you're paying for attention to detail.
P. S. This thread's utterly appalling and you should all be thoroughly ashamed. Shall we compile a Top 10?
No, no, I can call on your character too without foreknowledge. It's all right. She cited a vicious Jew-hater. I called her on it and her response was "And?" She used the phrase "the Jew". I guess it was just my silly need for clarification that brought all this on. No reason to think otherwise, obviously. Round and round. Can one have a red herring about a strawman? Would you eat it with chips? My apologies - I've always been told that one should give the public what they want. Enough with the rabid nonsense; if you're counterpoising sullen twentysomething disillusionment against some kind of appropriate emotional response, I'll take the latter. Yep. Nope. Yep. And rhetorical, also. You do not hesitate to make use of it; and neither do I. Actually, my people are the English - sorry to lead you all on; I was hoping for something more from a couple of others Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - but "the Jew" has the same connotation as a variety of other racially abusive terms. Add in the curiously unlinked comment from the hate site, and there we are. And where is that then? Moderator rope-a-dope. That's odd. I was just pondering how you were using them as a vehicle to despise Jewish people a bit more. Did you wish me to say something about the horror of Rwanda? Well, whitey should be happy to hear that. It's rare that one can garner the confidence necessary to equivocate the suffering of 2000 years as a displaced minority. I'm struck wondering what it would compare to. The holocaust of Native Americans would be one thing, I believe. This is correct. What's your point? Your plebian roots are peeking up. No, I don't dismiss any other holocaust or genocide as unimportant. The most you could say is that I don't know if one would call Rwanda a genocide, or more generally a holocaust, the difference only being the geno and not the kind of geno. I think proportionally to their population - and I've stated as much, assuming for a moment you've read my posts - the Armenian holocaust or genocide might have been worse than the Jewish one, but I have no idea how many Armenians died compared to how many were left. An even worse one would probably - almost certainly - be that of native North Americans. You seem to be trying to assign some kind of mean-spirited Zionist stance towards me. I'm going to blame it on the - as you point out - limited memory and capacity for discernment in the modern media-laden human being. Ah! You're not for this? So you must be for that! and so on. Life is usually a bit more complex, really. Ahem - again, no, you fool. Please, please read what I wrote above. I only comment on the political machinations behind the failure to respond. Rwanda did happen as we stood by; and so does everything else, including the ongoing hatred of Jewish people, even. Everything happens while someone is just standing around. This is called history. Although your complaint does make one wonder: what can we possibly be thinking, as we run about, imagining that the world is linked by these simple, rapid decisions, as though we had some kind of connection to the White House like a text-message id on speed-dial, or that our wish should suddenly somehow make it so. The gov'mint failed to respond? Conspiracy! Willful ignorance! Duplicity! I should press this button and the planes should fly! Don't tell me that the place is hugely far away and the UN hasn't agreed on where its thumb really ought to be during this crisis, or that the Yanks are too timid because of Somalia. The media didn't cover it? Conspiracy! Willful ignorance! Duplicity! Never mind the market share they need to fill based on our own self-absorbed consumption! Why...it must be...the Jews! Or the Muslims! Or the masons. Or someone. Don't boggle me down with complications; my ego can cut the hardest, densest red tape with a single stare! Stand back as I balance our budget with the power of my mind! Now it may all be exactly as you say...but let's be certain of our case first. What I was calling 'marginalization' was the oppression of the Jewish community in Europe prior to 1943. Yes; but also possessed of its own curious and depressing particularities. It was in a Western nation, and one we arguably had power to change or stop sooner. Boatloads of Jews were turned away back to slaughter despite being literally on our doorstep to save. (Native Americans: same point, really.) It had industrial extermination: the products of man's Industrial Revolution turned to the most twistedly revolutionary method to butcher people yet. (I don't count the atom bomb at this stage since it's availability wasn't really 'industrial' and since it wasn't used at the same level of extirpation of humanity.) Now, it wasn't the firstsuch, really, since the Armenian genocide or holocaust occurred sooner (and which, then, since we're bogging ourselves down in terminology, is the worse with which to then condemn me, Bells: genocide or holocaust? Or Holocaust? Do you actually care, save giving a reason to pointlessly criticize?) but it was in the heart of 'modern' Europe, not Turkey, right where they have the radios and newspapers and things. And it was undeniably genocidal, where it was attempted to extirpate a genetically distinct group within a society. So, I consider it very significant as a statement of man's inhumanity to man, and within a quite tiny group as well. Yet I am not denying the significance of other holocausts in favour of the capitalized one, and only someone unfamiliar with the logical process would think otherwise. Here I agree. But a question: as you allude to in the last sentence - if we can't even keep modern nation-states on our doorsteps from butchering millions, how exactly are we going to stop the nations half a remote world away from doing likewise? It's more when someone insinuates that I'm a racist that offends me. Unfortunately, it doesn't really stop the rhetoric, but more just pisses me off. Use your rhetoric on the plebes, and reason on the rationalists, all right? Then we have no need for vulgar contre-temps. Or better yet, look at the meaning of the "the". Fair enough. This isn't being done for points, Bells, if that's what you're thinking...well actually that is what you're thinking, evidently. I'm hesitant to say much about it since human genetics on the issue is tied up with sociology, and since in the Armenian and Rwandan cases I'm not sure what the difference or common usage actually is. The Jewish Holocaust was a genocide, for example, but is called a holocaust. Armenia and Rwanda were certainly holocausts, of course - if you feel they were genocides, then I suppose I have no argument with that. The entire process is a bit confused by the sociality and common usage from my perspective. I would have or have probably used either without thinking prior to now. I don't know. Is it called a genocide or a holocaust? Which is worse? I'm not sure, but I'm trying to listen to what you have to say past your bile, Bells. Ahem. That's not what I was saying. I'd actually more heard of it described overall as the Rwandan Civil War rather than the Rwandan Genocide specifically, so I really wasn't aware of the convention. I was being objective, Bells, not imperialist. Particularly as I didn't know what the genetics of the differentiation between the Hutu and Tutsi were, which is usually given as the benchmark, or so I'd thought. Apparently I'm not alone: I think all in all I would still call it a "genocide" despite the above; frankly, whether or not a "holocaust" is worse than a "genocide" or not (which seems to be the direction you're driving in vis-a-vis my comments) seems a bit moot. But if you want to pillory me anyway, please go right ahead. Or instead, read above, and actually read what I said this time, all right? Just once. For a change, like. It's really getting depressing how many times I have to scrape your frothing off my back, old friend, as you leap in without looking to try and sink in your fangs. Again. Honestly, dearest pal, one would imagine you didn't actually like me very much from the regularity of the event. You misunderstand me. That's all right, I'm used to it. I was merely referring to whether or not Rwanda was a genocide. (Please tell me which is worse: a genocide or a holocaust. And which one is morally worse. Frankly, I'm not sure: I guess a 'genocide' would be worse, since then the 'geno' would be gone, but the usage of 'geno' varies. I think the overall level evil relates to the particularities of each case.) Or maybe - just maybe - instead of leaping to the chance to attack me, greatest of chums, you might stop and consider whether I really believe what you seem to want me to. If so, I'll have to buy a new shirt, because the straw in the one you've put me in is really itchy. Best regards, Geoff
Hullo! Good to see your beady, blinking eyes. Although I'd been informed you were someone else... Somewhere, a Dutchman is cackling. Anyway, it would be too hard to compile a Top Ten of anything here these days. We can't even decide which moderators we hate. It's all changing too fast.
Top 9 modern genocides: 20th Century * Herero Genocide * Japanese occupation of Korea * Armenian Genocide * Holocaust * Sudanese Civil War * Liberian Civil War * Rwandan Genocide * Karabakh Genocide 21st Century * Genocide in Darfur
Well. It's a good starting point but I see that it lists them in a very unimaginative date order. I was thinking more along the lines of a Genocide Chart, with points awarded for numbers killed, percentage of population displaced, method of dispatch, etc. You know. Something befitting the tone of the thread. A definitive list of The 10 Best Genocides in the World... Ever!!! I see that Srebenica is missing from that list. So it's not only useless for our purposes, but also incomplete.
Thanks for a surprisingly relevant copy&paste, sam. Genocide is definitely the norm of human behavior. Somehow, after The Holocaust that was perpetrated against The Jew (and some other people Geoff doesn't really care about because he's such a rabid Jew. You are really rabid Geoff!!), we've got what, a half dozen more around the world? While Geoff stands around twiddling his thumbs and saying "ehh, it's not really a genocide..." What happened in Germany shouldn't be surprising. It was bound to happen in a Western country sooner or later. Everyone was jacked up on nationalistic fervor, looking to kill outsiders. The Soviets, under Stalin, went on to butcher 20 million or so. No one talks about that. The only difference between genocides elsewhere, and the holocaust, was technological. That's it. There was no special motivation, nothing special about the Nazis that made them super evil. They were just like anybody else that decides to go on a genocidal rampage. Like Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. The difference between Rwanda and Nazi Germany is similar to the difference between a bicycle and a Porsche. If the Rwandans could have afforded the Porsche, they would have sprung for it.
It's not just about the technology though. The technology was just the product of a cold, brutal and yet strangely dispassionate mindset. Mass murder carried out by accountants and administrators with, once the wheels started turning, barely a bullet 'wasted' nor a drop of blood spilled. Paperwork flying back and forth, and meetings held to get the bottlenecks moving. Just a job to be done, as quickly, quietly and cost-effectively as possible, with the waste products recycled and put to good use elsewhere. It's the cold, clinical nature of it that makes it unique... but I don't think that its uniqueness makes it necessarily more horrific than any other genocides or holocausts or mass murders on a comparable scale, and I think any attempt to rank these things is: (a) doomed; and (b) in shockingly poor taste.
I thought Hitler had to get everyone real fired up about killing people, then they just went about it in typical German fashion.
No one had to get fired up, it wasn't like Rwanda with it's orgies of bloodletting. A modern, industrialized, mostly Christian nation just decided to acquiesce to genocide. That means it can happen anywhere.
Well, I meant the Western equivalent of getting fired up. Posting on blogs about how terrible Muslims Writing newspapers and stuff about the evil Jewry.
I think you would find both Rwanda and the Armenian killings are commonly classified as genocides. The Holocaust, as it is now known was a genocide and a holocaust. You also need to understand that Hitler did not just slaughter Jews. He also slaughtered millions of other people as well, be they homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled, those who were commonly known as Gypsies, etc. Hence why it was a genocide and a holocaust. Rwanda, which differs from the Jewish holocaust and genocide, was also a genocide, and some could also view it as a holocaust. But it is most commonly viewed as a genocide. In part, I assume, because many view the term 'Holocaust' as being somehow synonymous and sacred to the Jews and others who perished at the hands of the Nazis. But the two terms certain go hand in hand. Where there is a genocide, you will usually find a holocaust. Nice. I see you have resorted to your charming self yet again. Rwanda was a genocide and can also be termed a holocaust, since a holocaust is generally viewed as being a destruction with a massive loss of life and the term was applied to what the Nazis did to the Jews and others during WWII. A genocide is a systemic destruction of a group, be they a racial, religious, or cultural group. Both applies to the killings of the Jews and others at the hands of the Nazis. What do you think applies most to Rwanda? Why do you think the West termed it as such and avoided using the word "Genocide" for the three months or so of the killings, as people watched it on TV? There are reasons. Do you know what they are? Oh, and the Convention actually predated Rwanda by a few decades... Oh? But it is far more likely that you hear about the Holocaust because it was done here, in the Western world http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1809594&postcount=171 Do you think one is more important then the other? Well! How kind of you. I'll put it to you this way. A holocaust is usually viewed as also being a genocide when the killings are intentional and systemic. Fangs? I had them removed than you very much!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have read what you have written and it appears to me that you are a bit confused on what is actually being discussed here. That you are reading more into it than is actually there. The holocaust does not always mean that the deaths are intentional or committed by another. My advice, read up on the definitions of both and then apply it to the known facts of Rwanda (as one example) or Sudan or even Kenya, if you want more recent events and see what you find. Let me ask you a question. Do you think the Rwandan genocide is equally or possibly more relevant to us as a society, today? I'll give you a hint. Rwanda showed us that we learnt nothing from the World War II holocaust and genocide. Rwanda showed us that we are selfish beings who are quite happy to let hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people die because we viewed any interference as being an inconvenience, be it costly and logistically. You should try some fabric softener. It helps soften the material a bit. Worked for me with the 'shirt' you put me in.
A couple of people here have said that the Jews control the media. They certainly have had a large input into American comedy series, which are the best in the World. It would be a much poorer World without Cheers, Frazier, Taxi, Seinfeld, Curb your Enthusiasm etc etc. These aren't all about Jews, but it is Jewish humour, wise wry and self deprecating, with some self-generated calamity always just around the corner. In fact, what view would we have of Americans if it wasn't for their Jewish comedy? It would be unremittingly negative I think.
