Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 176 to 190 of 190
  1. #176
    Thailand Expat HermantheGerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    27-03-2024 @ 05:25 AM
    Location
    Germany/Satthahip
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Yes, I am aware of the International Definition but I think the term is associated with the Nazi atrocity in most peoples minds and that this association is used to try and tar less shocking issues with the same brush for dramatic effect.
    Looper is on the spot and B0b is pushing his agenda
    How do you define genocide?



    Genocide is understood by most to be the gravest crime against humanity it is possible to commit.
    It is the mass extermination of a whole group of people, an attempt to wipe them out of existence.
    But at the heart of this simple idea is a complicated tangle of legal definitions.
    So what is genocide and when can that term be applied?
    UN definition

    The term was coined in 1943 by the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin who combined the Greek word "genos" (race or tribe) with the Latin word "cide" (to kill).
    After witnessing the horrors of the Holocaust, in which every member of his family except his brother was killed, Dr Lemkin campaigned to have genocide recognised as a crime under international law.
    His efforts gave way to the adoption of the UN Convention on Genocide in December 1948, which came into effect in January 1951.
    Article Two of the convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such":
    • 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
    The convention also imposes a general duty on states that are signatories to "prevent and to punish" genocide.
    Since its adoption, the UN treaty has come under fire from different sides, mostly by people frustrated with the difficulty of applying it to specific cases.
    Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutus were targeted in the Rwandan genocide They argue that the definition is too narrow. Others say the term is devalued by misuse.
    Some analysts contend that the definition is so narrow that none of the mass killings perpetrated since the treaty's adoption would fall under it.
    The objections most frequently raised against the treaty include:
    • The convention excludes targeted political and social groups
    • The definition is limited to direct acts against people, and excludes acts against the environment which sustains them or their cultural distinctiveness
    • Proving intention beyond reasonable doubt is extremely difficult
    • UN member states are hesitant to single out other members or intervene, as was the case in Rwanda
    • There is no body of international law to clarify the parameters of the convention (though this is changing as UN war crimes tribunals issue indictments)
    • The difficulty of defining or measuring "in part", and establishing how many deaths equal genocide
    But in spite of these criticisms, there are many who say genocide is recognisable.
    In his book Rwanda and Genocide in the 20th Century, former secretary-general of Medecins Sans Frontieres, Alain Destexhe, says: "Genocide is distinguishable from all other crimes by the motivation behind it.
    "Genocide is a crime on a different scale to all other crimes against humanity and implies an intention to completely exterminate the chosen group.
    "Genocide is therefore both the gravest and greatest of the crimes against humanity."
    Loss of meaning

    But Mr Destexhe believes the word genocide has fallen victim to "a sort of verbal inflation, in much the same way as happened with the word fascist".
    He says the term has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming "dangerously commonplace".
    Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, agrees.
    Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Some experts say the slave trade did not constitute genocide and warn the term is being misused "Those who should use the word genocide never let it slip their mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it into a validation of every kind of victimhood," he said in a lecture about Raphael Lemkin.
    "Slavery, for example, is called genocide when - whatever it was, and it was an infamy - it was a system to exploit, rather than to exterminate the living."
    The differences over how genocide should be defined have also led to disagreements on how many genocides actually occurred during the 20th Century.
    History of genocide

    Some say there was only one genocide in the last century: the Holocaust.
    However, others say there have been at least three genocides under the 1948 UN convention:
    • The mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks between 1915-1920, an accusation that the Turks deny
    • The Holocaust, during which more than six million Jews were killed
    • Rwanda, where an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus died in the 1994 genocide
    In Bosnia, the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica has been ruled to be genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
    And others give a long list of what they consider cases of genocide, including the Soviet man-made famine of Ukraine (1932-33), the Indonesian invasion of East Timor (1975), and the Khmer Rouge killings in Cambodia in the 1970s.
    The International Criminal Court in 2010 issued an arrest warrant for the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, on genocide charges.
    Image copyright AFP Image caption More than 7,000 Muslim men were killed at Srebrenica in 1995 He is accused of waging a campaign against the citizens of the Sudanese region of Darfur.
    Some 300,000 people are said to have died and millions have been displaced in seven years of fighting there.
    More recently, in March 2016, the US said so-called Islamic State (IS) was carrying out genocide against Christian, Yazidi and Shia minorities in Iraq and Syria.
    IS, or Daesh, was "genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology and by actions, in what it says, what it believes and what it does," Secretary of State John Kerry said.
    The jihadist group seized large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq in 2014, and has since become notorious for its brutality against perceived opponents.
    Legal precedent?

    The first case to put into practice the convention on genocide was that of Jean Paul Akayesu, the Hutu mayor of the Rwandan town of Taba at the time of the killings.
    In a landmark ruling, a special international tribunal convicted him of genocide and crimes against humanity on 2 September 1998.
    More than 30 ringleaders of the Rwandan genocide have now been convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
    In August 2010 a leaked UN report reportedly alleges that Rwandan Hutus, perpetrators of the 1994 genocide, may themselves have been victims of the same crime.
    In 2004, the ICTY widened the definition of what constitutes genocide.
    Image copyright AFP Image caption Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic remains on trial at the Hague General Radislav Krstic, the first man convicted by the ICTY of genocide in Bosnia, had appealed against his conviction for his role in the killing of more than 7,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica.
    But the court rejected his argument that the numbers were "too insignificant" to be genocide - a decision likely to set an international legal precedent.
    Since then a Bosnian Serb military commander has been cleared of being involved in Srebrenica.
    It remains to be seen whether cases still pending will aid clarity on what is and what is not genocide.
    The Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is currently on trial at The Hague accused of war crimes and genocide. He denies the charges.
    President Bashir continues to travel outside Sudan, to countries who are signatories to the International Criminal Court, without being detained as ordered by the arrest warrant.
    If his case is ever brought to trial it will be the first time that genocide charges are brought against a serving head of state.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11108059

  2. #177
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Yes, I am aware of the International Definition but I think the term is associated with the Nazi atrocity in most peoples minds and that this association is used to try and tar less shocking issues with the same brush for dramatic effect.
    Looper is on the spot and B0b is pushing his agenda
    How do you define genocide?



    Genocide is understood by most to be the gravest crime against humanity it is possible to commit.
    It is the mass extermination of a whole group of people, an attempt to wipe them out of existence.
    But at the heart of this simple idea is a complicated tangle of legal definitions.
    So what is genocide and when can that term be applied?
    UN definition

    The term was coined in 1943 by the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin who combined the Greek word "genos" (race or tribe) with the Latin word "cide" (to kill).
    After witnessing the horrors of the Holocaust, in which every member of his family except his brother was killed, Dr Lemkin campaigned to have genocide recognised as a crime under international law.
    His efforts gave way to the adoption of the UN Convention on Genocide in December 1948, which came into effect in January 1951.
    Article Two of the convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such":
    Which is what I said, you fucking moron. There is only one legal definition of genocide. It may not be the best definition but it's the only that counts.
    The Above Post May Contain Strong Language, Flashing Lights, or Violent Scenes.

  3. #178
    A Cockless Wonder
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Posts
    15,187
    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
    But Mr Destexhe believes the word genocide has fallen victim to "a sort of verbal inflation
    Just for the record, I came up with this idea independently, but it is nice to see that I am not alone in noticing how the word seems to have become devalued by overuse and definition-inflation for cheap political point-scoring.

    Quote Originally Posted by HermantheGerman
    Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it into a validation of every kind of victimhood
    Bingo!

    ....Mr Destexhe - whoever you are.

  4. #179
    Hangin' Around cyrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    33,534
    So where do you stand on Aboriginal gay marriage?






  5. #180
    Thailand Expat David48atTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Palace Far from Worries
    Posts
    14,393
    Quote Originally Posted by cyrille View Post
    So where do you stand on Aboriginal gay marriage?


    Well, assuming that the Gay Aboriginals who want to get married are Australian Citizens (no pun intended), Australians
    (who are registered to vote) are going to be asked that question.

    It's a huge issue here now, Gay Marriage.

    The funding approval to ask that question is not yet approved, thus I haven't done a thread on it yet.
    Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago ...


  6. #181
    Thailand Expat
    wasabi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Online
    28-10-2019 @ 03:54 AM
    Location
    England
    Posts
    10,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Seekingasylum View Post
    The bison herds were wiped out by white nigger trash hunters acting on the initiative of the white ruling classes who knew that with every dead bison there would be another Indian forced to live on the reservation. By destroying the mainstay of the Plains Indian's culture and eroding his economic foundation, they were ethnically cleansing those territories the Establishment wanted to exploit for their own vested interests.

    Whites are pretty much vermin, and always have been.
    So your not white.

  7. #182
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Online
    24-08-2018 @ 11:56 PM
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b
    Which is what I said, you fucking moron.
    Yet another dialogue enhancing post from drNob..

  8. #183
    last farang standing
    Hugh Cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Online
    15-03-2024 @ 01:44 PM
    Location
    Qld/Bangkok
    Posts
    4,110
    Australia's shameful past. Is it true? To some degree yes but in context no more so than any other past of a more technically advanced nation over one less so, from the Roman Empire before and since.
    The gradual expansion and colonisation of countries by a superior power has only slowed in the last half of the 20th century. Most probably due to the spread of technology world wide, without going into detail. Many could be considered shameful but are too numerous to mention here. The point needs acknowledgement that these things happened and some type of redress should be attempted to right these wrong especially in the case of indigenous people around the world.
    We also have to be careful of the oft adopted principal of "the noble savage". Many of these cultures were themselves brutal and war like. Inter tribal warfare was common as was the brutal treatment of aboriginal women by aboriginal men and has been well documented from early settlers and anthropologists as well as forensically. A practice that sees native women still being abused in vast numbers compared to the general population.
    It serves no purpose to beat the current children of wrong doings committed by their ancestors.
    Whilst dispossession and removal of culture has caused many indigenous problems around the world, money is not the answer. Australia has spent Billions of dollars on aboriginals with no significant gains. The answer lies with the aboriginals themselves and their own motivation or lack of will to tackle the problems of alcohol and violence in their own communities and acknowledging them. Firstly they need to get past their own cultural acceptance of violence. Unfortunately a culture of victim hood aided and abetted by many of the left and the "aboriginal industry" absolves them of taking personal responsibility for their own actions. When the majority do, they will have made a great step.

  9. #184
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    There is some truth in what you say Hugh, bit a great many misconceptions also.

    In Australias case the responsibility lies with the Victorian attitudes of the colonists. More recently, government attempts to rehabilitate aboriginals, were responsible for the uncontrolled explosion in alcohol abuse. Unforseen effects of do gooder intentions. Removing children for assimilation purposes probably seemed a good idea at the time, but in context was a clear moral own goal.

    As you rightly say, throwing money at the problem is not the solution. More care and consideration is required to visualize solutions and to avoid such unintended consequences.

    I still doubt the evidence of other primitive societies applies in this case, for the very logical reasons I have already stated on more than one occasion. The evidence of what happened to them post colonization also supports my theory.

    In my opinion they are not capable of accepting responsibility for others influence over them. Their current dole blunger lifestyles preclude returning them successfully to the state they held pre colonisation.

    Unfortunately there are many examples globally of how not to do it, but very few positive examples of a successful solution. There is clearly some kind of inhibitor strand in their DNA that prevents accelerated progress as a civilisation. The post colonial changes have not affected their development in a positive way.
    Heart of Gold and a Knob of butter.

  10. #185
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Online
    24-08-2018 @ 11:56 PM
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Cow View Post
    Australia's shameful past. Is it true? To some degree yes but in context no more so than any other past of a more technically advanced nation over one less so, from the Roman Empire before and since.
    The gradual expansion and colonisation of countries by a superior power has only slowed in the last half of the 20th century. Most probably due to the spread of technology world wide, without going into detail. Many could be considered shameful but are too numerous to mention here. The point needs acknowledgement that these things happened and some type of redress should be attempted to right these wrong especially in the case of indigenous people around the world.
    We also have to be careful of the oft adopted principal of "the noble savage". Many of these cultures were themselves brutal and war like. Inter tribal warfare was common as was the brutal treatment of aboriginal women by aboriginal men and has been well documented from early settlers and anthropologists as well as forensically. A practice that sees native women still being abused in vast numbers compared to the general population.
    It serves no purpose to beat the current children of wrong doings committed by their ancestors.
    Whilst dispossession and removal of culture has caused many indigenous problems around the world, money is not the answer. Australia has spent Billions of dollars on aboriginals with no significant gains. The answer lies with the aboriginals themselves and their own motivation or lack of will to tackle the problems of alcohol and violence in their own communities and acknowledging them. Firstly they need to get past their own cultural acceptance of violence. Unfortunately a culture of victim hood aided and abetted by many of the left and the "aboriginal industry" absolves them of taking personal responsibility for their own actions. When the majority do, they will have made a great step.
    At last... a sane voice in the wilderness.

  11. #186
    R.I.P.
    DrB0b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
    Posts
    17,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Mex View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b
    Which is what I said, you fucking moron.
    Yet another dialogue enhancing post from drNob..
    Yet another multi that will be gone soon enough

  12. #187
    A Cockless Wonder
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Posts
    15,187
    ^^^^Very good post hugh.


  13. #188
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Last Online
    24-08-2018 @ 11:56 PM
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by DrB0b
    Yet another multi that will be gone soon enough
    I am not schitz...skits...skidsophreniac..both of us..

  14. #189
    Thailand Expat helge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,664
    Sorry for the bump

    I was searching for newly departed Robert Fisk articles, and selected this thread.

    Started skimming for Fisk, but got taken by the fine debate, knowledge and mostly respectfull discussion.


    Weird thread

    No shitfights to talk about(well known shitfighter had a go, but no bites)


    Checked the replies list and sure enough the clue was hidden there

    Kudos for a very interesting thread to the ones who took part and not to forget, the ones who stayed away

  15. #190
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Re the OP- Believe me, we've been paying for it.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •