And one wonders why the Germans were so blind to Nazi atrocities. Obviously, the victims always lie. I just did. They not only killed the people in Qaim, civilians, women and children with snipers and bombs, they also left them to die without aid. And thats where an unembedded reporter was able to get info.
Were the victims in Nazi Germany fighting a guerilla war against the Germans? Small complication there.
Sure they were, in Poland. What do you think the Warsaw uprising was? The people of Qaim were in their own homes in their own country. Who invited the Americans to come and kill them?
No one, but you asked whether or not it was genocide. So it isn't, then. Moreover, it's pretty clear that the Jews weren't engaged in any such campaign, and that Warsaw was an almost singular exception. Which raises another singular exception: they were actually having a genocide against them. Your "don't believe the victims" parallel falls short. This is propaganda.
wow,where'd you hear of this plan?do you have access to the top levels of the us government?what is their reason for wanting to exterminate "a lot" (nice and vague there) of iraqis and afghanis?
The Jews were not expecting to be sent to camps and secret prisons either. But the Iraqis are being bombed, tortured and killed. That is hardly a secret to them Same reason they've been doing it elsewhere for the last 60 years http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
um.,there wasnt actually a single reason in there as to why the american government hates the arab race and wants to emliminate it
That is not my responsibility. If you have even the smallest understanding of the scientific process you will know that making an assertion requires the asserter to show the proof before something is taken as probable or as fact (confirmed theory). If you are unfamiliar with the scientific process I also have book recommendations that can help you with that topic.
Lets see. [War/death squads + dead civilians + permanent military bases]^n Repeat ad naseum for non Americans.
Everybody is wrong sometimes, Sam. Everyone let's the emotion of an issue get the better of them on occasion. Those of us who actually care work hard to reduce these instances and, hopefully, when they are illustrated to us we take note and attempt to better our positions, understandings and methods. You are looking more and more like someone who cares more about their emotional feelings, desire to win arguments and reputation than someone who actually cares about the issues or victims. If you actually care about the victims - if they are more important than you and your reputation - I suggest you learn to admit wrong when it's pointed out. This is not a genocide. You have offered no proof that it is a genocide. It does not fit the definition of a genocide. You have offered no proof that it does fit the definition. And yet you continue to argue in that way. So, which do you care about Sam; you or them?
Heh, thats what I call emotional manipulation. The Iraqis have been targeted by Americans since the 1980s, for what? Oil, hubris, racism? Who knows? But the US has been consistently wipping them out through two Gulf wars and now a permanent war that they show no inclination of ending. Perhaps this is their way of spreading Americana, the US version of a superior culture. Who lknows? Regardless, they have killed a million people simply for being Iraqis and no other reason [unless their being Muslims is a factor]. I call this genocide. Add in Afghanistan and Iran and Paksitan and it looks like a sustained long term genocide of the Middle East/Asian Muslims.
What you call genocide and what English - along with political science - call genocide are therefore not the same thing. If you had stated that in the beginning we could have avoided this whole mess. But I would suggest that if you hope for any chance of convincing people, effecting culture or understanding culture/cause/effect, you should probably use the terminology in the way it properly means. Inventing one's own vocabulary that is different from the shared scientific meaning rarely helps any good cause. In fact, it is precisely the poor method governments frequently use to advance unjust causes. I'm not so sure you want to be playing the same game they are. Unless, as stated, what you care about is yourself rather than the victims.
Oh I do not think American foreign policy against Iraqis/Muslims is unplanned at all; only they call it "spreading democracy" Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
Also, I disagree with this. But you need to be more clear. The Bush administration shows no sign of stopping. McCain has endorsed no sign of stopping. But Obama has. Whether or not he will, an American vote for Obama would be a sign (not proof, but a sign) that American culture has shifted to an inclination of ending this war. Given his popularity (and easy win over Hillary), there is already a strong inclination of this sentiment.
he'll bomb Pakistan instead. heh. And he wont remove the gargantuan base in Baghdad or the 50 plus other bases in the country. So much for self determination. Here is the opinion of a political scientist Genocide in Iraq? By DAVID MODEL http://www.counterpunch.org/model05212008.html
I can't let a political ignoramus make a statement like this and get away with it: Don't you mean: "What I call genocide, and what others call it are different things"...? Because there is only one definition, Mr political scientist. The deliberate wanton targeting of civilians, isn't it? - I remember how shit-scared all the grunts in Iraq, especially in the cities, all were at the start; how they would just shoot anyone who got close. They were only concerned about being able to move through a civilian population, by clearing civilians from a radius around them, so they were themselves safe. The tactic appeared to be: ensure the safety of the US troops by engaging all Arabs as potential terrorists. Or assume they are anyway, just shoot them in case they might be. After all, the mission was meant to be about bringing peace, security, and democracy. The formula, however, appeared to be applicable only to US troops, who regarded (they still do) every Iraqi as a terrorist. So: the US is setting up a democracy for US troops, and US bases, not for Iraqis - they shoot and rape and torture Iraqis, in their US democracy that they've transplanted, more or less intact from ground zero in Manhattan, along with all that vengefulness. They invaded Iraq, after beating up on the Taleban for a while. They went to Iraq, to take revenge on Iraqis for 9/11. It's really all it's ever been about for most US soldiers. They get trained and indoctrinated this way, like German troops were by the Nazis - "Arabs are scum, they're all terrorists, a good US soldier shoots terrorists". (SS Officer: "Jews are scum, a good German soldier shoots Jews") Now tell me US soldiers never fire their weapons unless absolutely necessary, never engage in extrajudicial killings, looting, rape, beatings - you know, all the stuff most soldiers in a foreign country get up to. Tell me every US soldier is a paragon of virtue, the US army does not fill its ranks with felons and criminals released from jails because they can't get the volunteers for their mostly pathetic attempt at democracy-building. Go on.
