Nah, its all fine in Iraq, the people of Qaim were delusional. As were the 80 children bombed in the madrassa in Afghanistan. Everything is all fine. Go back to your "reality"
I'd like them to be 0, but you're the one arguing genocide. Say, where'd all the Assyrian communities go? Or the Armenians? They were right there, and then poof! Nothing. And no one says a word. Glass houses.
Neither the Russians invading various countries to spread communism nor Hitler invading Poland/Czech/whathaveyou were genocides. The Nazi genocide was the holocaust of the gypsies, jews, gays, etc. And yet is not an example of a determined effort to wipe out an ethnic, national or religious group. For it to be a genocide it would need to be an effort to kill all of Iraqis, Moslems or a specific ethnic group in Iraq/Afghanistan. No, it's not. I'm sure your English is good enough to understand the difference between (a) killing a percentage and (b) killing all. If it is not, I can suggest some excellent English textbooks to help. The Americans set up permanent military bases in Japan and South Korea. As of today I'm fairly sure they have yet to exterminate the Japanese or South Korean ethnic groups. You can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty certain about this one. ------------------- I am against this war. It was a terrible idea, poorly planned and horribly executed. It displayed a lack of understanding tantamount to retardation. The media, public and government together were - in general - marvelously idiotic in a way that's simply baffling. That such a mistake could be made is terrifying and almost robs one of any hope for America progressing in it's role as world police rather than slipping further into evil empire-like domination. That said, I also have a certain amount of respect for the English language and political science as a method for interpreting and understanding events as well as proposing solutions. English makes it very clear this is not a genocide. For the sake of understanding (i) the American support for this war (ii) the international support for this war in many countries (iii) the effects of the war on the Iraqi/Arab/Moslem people (iv) the poor planning (v) the varied American responses to the abject failure of the war (vi) the effects of the war on foreign relations amongst Arab nations (vii) the effects of the war on the relationship between Arab civilians and their governments (viii) the effects of the war on foreign policy theory in general: And because of all these and more, therefore; (ix) the possible solutions to all of the questions raised by these new situations: It is necessary to take a proper scientific approach to understanding and analyzing these questions. To do otherwise - to take an emotional, baseless, inaccurate approach - is detrimental to finding the proper solutions and understanding. It is understandable and predictable that many who consider themselves to be on the inside of these effects (Iraqis, Afghanis, many Moslems, those living in Middle Eastern nations, those who for some reason or another feel a connection to Islam, those who consider it part of a greater attack on Arab freedom, etc.) will find it difficult to take the scientific approach. Even 60 years later many Jews find it difficult (or impossible) to calmly, rationally and scientifically discuss the events of the Jewish holocaust. Even more than 100 years after the formal ending of the enslavement of blacks in most Western nations, many of African decent still find it difficult to discuss the events and effects in a calm, rational and scientific manner. The same is true of the victims of most great atrocities and is perfectly understandable. Yet you, Sam, live far enough outside the victim group of this particular atrocity that you should weigh the benefit of finding proper solutions above the importance of your emotional response. This is not a genocide. It does not fit the definition of a genocide. It has not come from the same mindset as a genocide (though similarities exist), it has not produced the same results as a genocide and it will not end as a genocide typically ends. It is a different beast. I can call my dog a cat, but it will only hurt my understanding of the dog, not help it.
And you modified your post after I'd responded. I was referring to Armenia and Assyria, as my posts above indicate. You went from: To: Classy. Too bad you can't play with my posts too. Then you'd be set.
Ask the people of Qaim what they think it is. Not only were they bombed, but humanitarian help was restricted to them for days. This is genocide. http://www.williambowles.info/iraq/2005/al_qaim.html
Did you not read my post? Sam, you are either (i) unaware of the definition of a genocide; (ii) unaware of what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan; (iii) unaware of why the current situation does not match a genocide; (iv) letting your emotional response take more importance than truth. People have shown you the answer to (i). I don't believe (ii) is true of you. I have illustrated why (iii) is not true, and I also don't believe you're unaware of these points. That leaves only (iv). And I elucidated the reasons why this is a detrimental mindset. If you wish to effectuate change, increase understanding, gain support for your position, help to change the culture that produced this... you must cast aside the emotional, irrational insistence on nonsense. The poor people of Qaim are not in the best position to do this. You are in an excellent position to do this. If you wish to be childish, inaccurate and unscientific, you should not expect any good effects to come from your actions. So, Sam, choose which one is more important.
This is a genocide? So, Sam, which ethnic group did they try to completely eliminate? Or; Which national group did they try to completely eliminate? Or; Which religious group did they try to completely eliminate? I may be shoddy on my knowledge of Al Qaim, but I'm pretty sure it does not constitute any of (a) An entire ethnic group (b) An entire national group (c) An entire religious group.
I know the "resistance" is pursuing an exclusive policy of kicking out all non-muslims. That would be an entire culture, by Tyler's position.
Why? Because its your country doing it? Suppose it was Iranians doing the same thing in Israel. What would you call it?
No, it would not. That would be the "ethnic cleansing of an area". Not a genocide. Can you prove that they are (i) attempting to kill each and every single living muslim (ii) attempting to kill each and every single living iraqi (iii) attempting to kill each and every single living afghani?
Ah! Only believe the media Sam says you should. I see. And when four or five papers report it, disbelieve it all the harder. But if the "resistance" reports it, it must be true. Because they have explicit ethical controls on their communications, coupled with independent oversight. Sure.
