MSA Student Would Prefer Second Holocaust

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by GeoffP, May 14, 2010.


Do you support the head of Hizbollah's statement, and agree with J. Albahri?

Poll closed Jul 13, 2010.
  1. Yes.

  2. No.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    You're speaking of Gaza in particular. All those things are terrible bells but its still not a genocide. The Hutu's in Rwanda didn't do anything like that since they were neither interested in having second class Tutsis at hand nor were they trying to encroach on another's land and yet they did go about having a genocide. Israeli's do all those things but they are not performing a genocide. Again I want to know why there are Palestinians who are not living like that in the West Bank and Israel proper if there is a desire to kill off all the palestinians. You have mass starvation in N. Korea and that isn't a genocide either.

    Name me all these historical genocides where people were not being killed in large numbers?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Oh god..

    This is getting ridiculous

    Okay Lucy. In private and secret memos. Not public memos. Do you get that yet? It was never acknowledged in public or recognised formally as a "genocide" in public, because to do so would mean that they would have to act.

    The very fact that it was recognised in secret by the US Government for example, and they still refused to act, as they were obligated to, if they acknowledged it.. what does that tell you? Why the fuck do you think they only ever acknowledged it in private and secret? And then did nothing but delay and sabotage any efforts to stop it.. They didn't want to have anything to do with it.

    I'll make it simple..

    Public acknowledgement of "genocide" = obligation to act..

    Private and secret acknowledgement of "genocide" = not having to do anything about it.

    So they acknowledged it in private and recognised it was a genocide in private and secret.. and didn't do so in public because to do so in public would equal to their being obligated to act. That is what Dallaire's gripe was. Their refusal to acknowledge formally and in the open public sphere that it was a "genocide" and thus, their refusal to do anything to help, but instead, attempted to sabotage any efforts the UN made to act on it.. because they didn't want to become involved as the world would expect them to help in what was happening..

    The UN was stymied by the power brokers on the SC, they being the US, France, the UK.. Who made sure they sabotaged any resolution of other countries made to send in aid and troops to stop what other nations were recognising as a genocide. They even refused to send food and water to the UN staff who were in Rwanda and then forced to have UNAMIR reduced in staff numbers..

    Dallaire admits that he never used the term "genocide" until well into the events, because he admits that in his mind, he couldn't believe it was happening again, that the lessons learned in the Holocaust were not learned and that the world was again doing nothing to stop it. He admits that he couldn't refer to it as a "genocide" until later on, because he couldn't mentally deal with the world's silence and refusal to act. The fact that the US, for example, actually cautioned members of Government staff from using the word "genocide" as it would mean that the US would be obligated to act if it did.. Get it yet?

    When was the last time you read it Lucy? I re-read it about 4 weeks ago when I was reviewing a paper on the Genocide for a colleague of mine. You want to argue about something I spent the better part of my legal career studying? Go right ahead. I know that book back to front. Go back and read chapter's 13 and 14.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Memos they shared with EACH OTHER within the US government and UN governing body. But don't be shy answer my question in post #441. Like I said you don't know what you are arguing, you seem to be saying that because the UN didn't make a formal open acknowledgement of rwanda being a genocide that they in fact didn't know it was a genocide. This we know is INCORRECT!

    You also say that Dallaire admits he didn't use the word genocide. Then why did he inform the UN of an impending genocide to request permission to go and remove the cache of arms he was informed of? Why was there concern for all the announcements on the radio giving details of what date they should wipe out the 'cockroaches'? Maybe they thought they were discussing insects

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    What part of a slow genocide escaped you?

    Read the definition.. "in part"..

    I repeat:

    Now, think of the restrictions, the denial of rights, the identity cards, the forced removal at the whim of the Israeli Government of Palestinians who have the right permits and papers (already linked in this thread and others), the denial of adequate food and water and medical care. The blockades.. Their forced removal from their homes.. Being forced to live in Ghettos under appalling conditions, etc.. Really.. Why do you think Israel is doing it? The damage doesn't just have to be physical Lucy. But mental pain and damage... Now, are you going to claim that Israel is doing it unintentionally?

    Honestly.. if I were to use your understanding of "genocide", then only mass graves would apply. And a genocide does not need a mass grave to be a genocide. It can be slow or it can be fast. But the result, even if it takes 100+ years is still the same.

    You might not want to recognise it as such and that's fine. Others in Internation Law legal circles and human rights activists disagree with you.
  8. Bells Staff Member


    Memo's they shared amongst each other.. but never once did they formally recognise it as a fucking Genocide.

    They prevented the UN from using the term Lucy! The US Government issued memos to their departments ordering them to not use the term "genocide" and stated their reasons why..

    *Sticks pins in eyes as it is less painful than making you see the bleeding obvious*..

    What I am saying is that they knew it was a genocide but did not formally acknowledge it so that they were not obligated to act. How many times and in how many different ways do I have to say it?:bawl:
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Its not a 'slow genocide' Bells. Its not a genocide AT ALL! Gaza is isolated because Hamas who controls the area continued to smuggle arms into their area and set off random rockets to settler territory. That's why they are being isolated not because there is an intention of killing off all the palestinian people. They are attempting to siege them down so to speak. Break their will and turn the people against Hamas, that is what is going on. Again you haven't shown me the slightest evidence that there is a government agenda to kill off all palestinians.

    As for the Rwanda incident you are just playing stupid. Just because they didn't publicly declare something doesn't mean they didn't KNOW it was happening.

    AGAIN why is it that the US who formally acknowledged the genocide in Darfur were not obligated to send troops in? Its only the third time I asked that bloody question. Why is it that if the US, who were calling Darfur a 'genocide' didn't force the UN to use that term as you say they 'prevented' the UN from calling Rwanda a genocide? This is why your reasoning doesn't stand ground, recognizing a situation as a genocide doesn't automatically require 'intervention'. Remember that Darfur took place after Rwanda so I find it curious that you haven't explained why the US didn't intervene since they publicly called the situation a genocide when the UN would not especially when you suggest the US has such power over the UN that they can tell them when they can be publicly acknowledge a genocide and when they cannot.
    Last edited: May 26, 2010
  10. Bells Staff Member

    That is by your opinion Lucy. Doesn't make it reality.

    So make one 1.5 million people suffer because of a few rockets? Starving a people and denying the right to even shelter (they even banned things like concrete to allow them to rebuild after they destroyed their homes in the last incursion).. What the hell do you think that amounts to Lucy?

    I'd suggest you read Dallaire's last chapter, his conclusion, where he talks about how our lack of action is breeding more terrorists.. about how the world does not get to the root of what causes terrorism and about what causes the rage amongst Palestinians, for example..

    The Palestinians won't turn on Hamas for a simple reason. They rightly see Israel as being their tormentors and the ones who are starving them and denying them the right to access medical care or the right to shelter, clean water or even A4 paper for goodness sake. That blockade has become a part of the slow genocide. You can excuse it as much as you want and say it's to force the people of Gaza to bring down their Government, but at the end of the day, people are suffering and dying because another State isn't allowing them the right to basic items such as food, clean water, clothing or shelter.

    So the treatment of the Palestinians is what, in your opinion? The care and share show? What the hell do you think is happening to the Palestinians Lucy?

    Oh my fucking God!

    Okay.. this stops right here.

    It is clear that you have issues with reading and comprehending. Had you read what I had written, you would have seen that I was quite clear. The US, along with the UK and France were well aware of what was happening. They privately acknowledged that it was a genocide and the US in particular, instructed staff to not say the word "genocide" to the media or in public because if they did, then under the Treaty, they would be forced to act and do something about it. I have said, about a hundred fucking times now, that they knew it was a genocide and did not acknowledge it in public and prevented the UN from saying the word "genocide" because they did not want to be forced to act to stop or prevent it.

    Do. You. Get. It. Now?

    I cannot believe that you still don't get that bit. :bawl:

    Oh god.. someone kill me now..

    Do you understand the power that countries like the US, UK and France have over the SC? Veto powers mean much?

    The genocide in Sudan started in 2003. The US recognised it in late 2004. Hmm.. quick response there, eh? Do you remember how NGO's, human rights groups, stars like Clooney were begging for formal recognition that it was a genocide Lucy? Yes? No?

  11. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Oh yes Bells I remember, I also remember there being a lot of controversy as to whether it was really a genocide at all since aid agencies over estimated the number of deaths due to killings and then there was the piece by AFSHIN RATTANSI who with a variety of interviews joined some others who believed the conflict was not a genocide and that the genocide was concocted by the international press and aid agencies to further fund their projects.

    I know all about how powers such as the US are in control of the security council and veto things that are not to their liking ITS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FROM MY FIRST POST! But that aside you still have yet to make an argument against the fact that the US and the UN knew there was an impending and then actual genocide afoot in Rwanda and chose to do nothing. You still haven't given a balanced account for why the UN didn't turn on its heels and call Darfur a genocide when the US had already done so.

    Now for the Palestinians. Its a human rights issue and a process of ethnic cleansing (something you fail to acknowledge) but it is not a genocide. Like I said you have to show proof that Israeli's want more than just the land and sovereignty, you have to show evidence that the state's function is to eliminate, not displace but eliminate the population and its simply untrue that they have shown any signs of doing so and if they did there wouldn't be a palestinian left in Gaza. So again other than your stupid juvenile rant why don't you go and look for some facts that would actually back up your claim. And why don't you answer two simple questions, the first being why is it that the 20% of palestinian Israeli's are not being systematically killed if there was a genocide afoot? And then you can answer the second question which is why is it that the UN didn't turn on its heels and declare Darfur a genocide? You see you really didn't answer that question. If as you say the US is the one who decides what is a genocide and what is not then why didn't they use that influence on the UN?

    Because the UN was still claiming the following in 2005:

    A commission of inquiry appointed by the UN found in early 2005 that the Sudanese Government had not pursued a policy of genocide, but that its forces and the Janjaweed had “conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement.”

    So why did they say this in 2005 if the US had already declared it a genocide?:shrug: I mean the US declared it a genocide and STILL didn't send in any troops so you make no sense with 'they deny genocide so they don't have to do anything'.

    Your argument is flawlessly stupid Bells

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And you are wrong about the palestinian being systematically murdered by Israel also AND you still haven't shown any evidence of its existence.
  12. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    In Europe maybe, and even then only according to a certain starry-eyed faction of Western polities. For much of the rest of the world it was only the beginning. The following decades saw Partition, the Korean War, the invasion of Tibet, Vietnam, East Timor, ad nauseum.

    And let's note that they said all that same stuff about World War I, too.

    Last I checked, the "launch" in question consisted of a defensive war against vastly larger armies which sought to reject the solution produced by mutually-cooperative body in question.

    Again, that was the ostensible purpose of the institutions founded after World War I as well.

    I think a lot of people would tell you that the UN is, in reality, as much about formalizing existing power relationships as it as about creating any new form of statecraft. That the occupation of Europe by the superpowers drained European capacity for and interest in violence never implied that violence was less normative in world affairs (Eurocentric rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding); it only meant that it would no longer be Europeans directing the violence. Well, and that there'd be a temporary decline in the overall level of such violence, since Europe, at the time, accounted for most of the capacity for such.

    Not that any of that stopped them from teaming up with Israel to try to carve the Suez Canal off of Egypt, or re-assert empire in Vietnam, etc.

    Again, I dispute that this stuff came to much of a stop with WWII.

    My view of the history is considerably more cynical than that. The horror to be avoided was not the use of industrial warfare for statecraft in general - it's only the case of two (or more) industrial powers going at one another. It wasn't the British gassing of the Kurds or anything like that which motivated the powers in question: it was the mutual destruction of the industrial powers of the time that offended. And in the end, that sort of stuff hasn't been avoided by civilized cooperation so much as the coincidence that the arsenals of industrialized nations became so destructive that the expected returns on warring one of them became uniformly (and strongly) negative.

    Meanwhile, the supposed guarantors of this new world order have showed little restraint about applying industrial violence to peoples without a capacity for industrial warfare. And I think that goes a lot farther in setting global norms than any airy proclamations made by UN diplomats ever will.

    I've already indicated my disagreement with that assertion, although I'd accept that Israel has perhaps been more successful (at least, relative to its size) than most others. But Russia is still banging away at the Caucusus, India and Pakistan still play the gambit for Kashmir, China is still oppressing the western provinces (and aiming a nasty arsenal at Taiwan), etc.

    So you mean that Israel stands to end up like the United States, or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand? Or, on the other hand, like France in Vietnam?

    Again, the nasty consequences in question had to do with contests of power between industrialized militaries. That's not what's happening here - this is less WWIII than it is the Trail of Tears.
  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    than I suggest you check again.

    first mistake it was an offensive war. Israeli forces had left "jewish territory" several months before any arab army got involved. by the time the 2 arab armies that actually entered "jewish territory" the war had been established as a war of conquest.
    second mistake. the Israeli army was the vastly larger of the armies
    third mistake the solution proposed was a. only a suggestion and b lacking in validity because it violated the UN charter's guarantee to self determination
    Last edited: May 27, 2010
  14. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member


    If the term "genocide" does not fit the bill in defining the "treatment" of the Palestinian people. What term or definition would you offer? And what would be your moral stance around such "treatment"?
  15. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Indeed. I always wonder at the frequency, tears and ritual around WW2 memorial parades and victory/tragedy anniversaries, in remembrance and in the name of "this shall never happen again". And yet it has and does. :m:
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    It's only a wonder if you read "this" as referring to "warfare, in general."

    If you read it as "contests of violence between developed countries" then it all makes perfect sense. There haven't really been any to speak of, since that time. Although, again, in my estimation that has as least as much to do with the coincidence that nuclear weapons arose at that same time, as with any deep revolution in the philosophy of statecraft. Put another way, the contests never ceased, they just became sublimated into the level of threat rather than actuality, as the nuclear age increased the risks of initiating actual violence exponentially. But geopolitics remained basically a contest in terms of capacity for industrial violence all the way through the Cold War and, I'd argue, the present day.

    The use of industrial violence against opponents without serious capacity for such, on the other hand, never suffered much interruption.
    Last edited: May 26, 2010
  17. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Yes, well said. I believe this "status quo" has entered a new era of uncertainty as China rises and flexes. One wonders whether this will lead to a "balance of power" (Cold War type), or conflict?
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Not as brief as I hoped, but, still ....

    I would only make a couple of brief comments. First is a lyric: "Gathered at the cenotaph, all agreed with hand on heart to sheath the sacrificial knives." (People, what have we done?)

    Secondly, I would note that, in the nuclear age (e.g., Cold War), we accomplished most of our warmaking through proxies. Conflicts in Asia, Central and South Americas, and Africa often pertained to or derived directly from the Amero-Soviet dispute.

    It has always been my understanding that the phrase, "Never again!" pertains to the idea that, while warfare is probably a permanent companion in our human journey through the Universe, the Great Wars of the twentieth century simply demanded too great a toll. At least thirty seven million in WWI, and at least sixty million in WW2, as well as phrases like "The Lost Generation" in France are echoes of the toll those wars demanded. Additionally, the horrors of the Holocaust and the advent of the very weapons you have mentioned impressed upon the leaders of the day the need to avoid ever again bringing the world to such a state of affairs.

    Perhaps I make too much of the issue for our purposes here, but this thread is firing off in curious directions.

    Where have all the flowers gone? And should they only grow again that we might harvest anew?
  19. Bells Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Lucy, there is only so much that I can provide someone by way or links, chapters from books.. You know the saying you can lead a camel to water but you can't force it to drink?

    I can't make an argument "against the fact that the US and the UN knew there was an impending and then an actual genocide afoot in Rwanda and chose to do nothing". That's what I've said all along. Quite literally. I said, they never acknowledged it in public or fomerly acknowledged it so that they wouldn't have to do anything. I said they knew about it and did nothing. Why in the hell do you expect me to make an argument against it... Me thinks you are confused my dear lady and need to go back and read what I have said and not what you think I have said. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

    I never said it wasn't also ethnic cleansing.

    I provided links to your Darfur question. Again.. camel.. water.. can't make it drink.

    What do you think the effects of Israel's policies with the Palestinians will be Lucy? Why do you think they are doing it? Is it because they care? Why commit ethnic cleansing? What is the reasoning behind it? Cull the herd? Or want them gone? Why do people commit ethnic cleansing Lucy?

    When you can answer those questions, then you might, just might, understand why people in International Law circles and human rights activists are referring to it as a slow genocide.

    Yes. The US acknowledged it as a genocide.. In that the US State Department officially recognised it as a genocide a year after it started. The UN did not until much later. You do recognise that the US and the UN are two different things, right? I mean I know they start with "U" and all..

    Because the US expected the UN to order in the troops, in that the US refused to act without a UN mandate.. excuses excuses.. following international law rules.. do you get that bit?

    Much like Australia refused to act without a UN mandate or UN permission in East Timor when East Timorese were being massacred en masse in the streets in what was the start of a genocide.

    Yes Lucy. It's my argument.

    Firstly, go back and read Dallaire's book and pay particular attention to chapters 13 and 14. Then go back and look at timelines. And then, go and read up about International Law. Okies?

    Okay. Lucy. Read the definition of "Genocide". Pay particular attention to:

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    Think about what that entails Lucy. Try. No, really.. try..

    You don't need mass murder for there to be a genocide Lucy. That part above does not talk about mass murder in that it is broad and just the blockade, random bombings, denying them adequate nutrition and clean water and access to health care.. that qualifies under the above section Lucy. More than qualifies. It does not need to be fast as in hacking people to death in the streets and mass graves. That is why those who study international law are calling it a slow genocide. Because what Israel is doing falls smack bang into part (c).. Making sure that conditions of life are such that it will eventually bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part.. Read those words carefully..

    Now, why is Israel committing ethnic cleansing, by your own admission? What is the reasoning behind their ethnic cleansing?
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Right - the whole phenomenon of proxy war was driven by the imperative that direct confrontation between superpowers must be avoided. The few times where the spectre of direct confrontation reared its head (Cuban missile crisis, the tank stand-off at Checkpoint Charlie, etc.) are typically described these days in ominous terms about "standing on the brink of Armageddon" and so on. But nobody applies that level of horror to the various other wars that raged in the intervening decades which did not present any immediate prospect of direct superpower confrontation - including ones in which one or the other superpower participated openly, directly and at length.
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Excuse me.

    Isn't this precisely what I was saying a couple of pages back about Rwanda and the Western powers?

    And didn't you throw a gigantic hissy fit about it, insinuating that I was a racist?

    And isn't this now precisely what you're saying?
  22. Bells Staff Member

    So you said that the West knew and did nothing about it and you said what? Ah yes.. distance, wasn't it? You justified it with distance.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Which did not involve the invasion and conquest and appropriation of one people's land by another's - at least, it was denied with arguments more plausible than Israel's.

    Conquest and annexation and removal of the conquered often involves courage and heroism, martial and military virtues of various kinds.

    Agreed. Your point?

    How does any of this justify Israel's behavior, or excuse the failure of the US to curb it?
    None of those places have been doing what Israel has been doing - expanding its territory and importing colonists while removing the natives into ghettoes and concentration areas.

    China might come close, with Tibet - but that has been in the wake of Israel, among other details. And that would make two: Israel and China.

    I think that was the plan. Those kinds of plans are not supposed to be allowed.
    So how is a modern Trail of Tears likely to work out? There is no frontier, no large emptied landscape to put the Palestinians in.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page